Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180903plCC701-32 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: 9/3 /2018 Document dates: 8/15/2018 – 8/22/2018 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 | 8/16/2018 4:40 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Wiggin <john@napawiggin.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 2:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Council Agenda Item number 2, mitigation to avert fire danger.  YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS in your effort, for undergrounding  overhead lines is not even mentioned.  That is the obvious answer but for some reason never comes up for  serious discussion I assume because of cost.  The alternative cost could far exceed the cost to  underground.  Overhead wires are the nexus for many of the fires.  To ignore this fact is to stick your head in  the sand.  I am very disappointed.  Thanks  CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: 5 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHIKADA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 20, 2018 SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA ITEM 5 This is an informational addendum to assist with discussion of the August 20, 2018 Council Agenda Item 5 (Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the Objectives of the State Water Resources Control Board's Bay Delta Plan and a Negotiated Voluntary Settlement of Water Issues on the Tuolumne River). Last week the State Water Resources Control Board chose not to make a decision on the Bay Delta Plan at its meeting tomorrow, continuing the ·action to a later date and emphasizing the value of a voluntary settlement. The letter was based on a request from the California Natural Resources Agency. Both letters are attached. Ed Shikada General Manager I Assistant City Manager Utilities Department 6053954 August 15, 2018 Felicia Marcus, Chair Steven Moore, Vice-Chair Tam M. Doduc, Member Dorene D'Adamo, Member E. Joaquin Esquivel, Member State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor JOHN LAIRD, Secretary for Natural Resources Re: August 21, 2018 Meeting, Agenda Item 4: Consideration of a Proposed Resolution to Adopt Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Estuary and Adopt the Final Substitute Environmental Document Dear Chair Marcus, Vice-Chair Moore, and Members: I write on behalf of my agency and the Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Wildlife (Departments) pursuant to the procedures stated in your "Notice of Public Meeting" (July 6, 2018), p. 3. Specifically, I request that you give the Departments the opportunity to discuss information they could present on scientific methods available to evaluate the relative benefits of flow and non-flow actions to protect native salmonid fish species in the San Joaquin Basin. We request 30 minutes for the presentation. This information bears on adaptive implementation, as well as the voluntar)' settlement agreer:nents which the Departments expect to complete and submit. SEO Appendix K, pp. 30, 36. Further, we request that the State Water Board exercise your authority to continue the meeting beyond August 22 , 2018 (Notice, p. 1) so that final board action will take place at a future board meeting. Thank you for consideration of this request. Sincerely, cr~dltw& Secretary for Natural Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311, Sacramento. CA 95814 Ph. 916.653.5656 Fax 916.653.8102 http://resources.ca.gov Baldwin Hills Comtrvancy • California Coastal Commission • Cal1fomia Coastal Conmvancy • Ca/iforniaConsetV?o°" Corps • Ca6fom1a Tahoe ConsttVOn<y Coachtlla Valley Mountains Constrvancy • Colorado River Boord of CaNforrna • ~ta Prottctron Commission • Delta Sttwardship Council • ~rtm•nt of Booting & Wattrways • Department of Conservation Department of Fish & Garn• • Dtparrment of Forestry & Firt Protection • Departmtnt of Parks & Rtcrtation • Dtpartmtnt of Rtsourcts Rtcyc6ng and RtcO>fl)' • Dtpartmtnt af Wattr Resources ftJ69yResources, Conservation & Dem~nt Comm1Ssion • Nattve Atm'rican Htntage Commission • Sacromento·Sanloaqum ~Ira ConRrvancy • San Dkgo River Conservancy San Francisco Bay Conservation & Dc!velopmtnt Commission • San Gabrkl & Lower Los Angeks Rivers & Mountains ConSttVancy • SanJoaqwn RtverConservancy Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy • Sierra Nevada Conservancy • State Lands CommiSSlon • Wiidiife Conservation Board Water Boards State Water Resources Control Board August 15, 2018 Honorable John Laird Secretary for Natural Resources California Natural Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento. CA 95814 Dear Secretary Laird: VIA U.S. MAIL AND EMAIL I have received the request you submitted on behalf of the California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Department of Water Resources for an opportunity to present at next week's board meeting on adaptive implementation and voluntary settlement agreements. Your letter also requests that the board defer final action on the item As discussed below and after conferring with the Executive Director, both requests are granted. Throughout the last two years, board members and staff have repeatedly emphasized that voluntary settlement agreements can provide a faster, more durable solution to reasonably protect beneficial uses in the Lower San Joaquin River and its tributaries. The pending board action recognizes the important of both flow and non-flow actions to enhance the fisheries and provides significant flexibility for adaptive implementation. Voluntary settlement agreements present the opportunity to make the non-flow elements more concrete and reduce the potential water supply impact. I look forward to hearing from the parties involved in the voluntary settlement agreement process about their progress in this regard. Board staff will issue a revised agenda that makes clear final action will occur at a subsequent board meeting. The agenda item next week will provide the final opportunity for comment on the staff-proposed action, but final board action on the water quality control plan update will be continued to a future board meeting. Sincerely. \ L-~uk: )lL~ Yelicia Marcus Chair FELICIA MARCUS, CHAIR I E1~1EEN SoaecK, EXECUTl\11! OIR£CTOR 1001 I Strff'l. Sacramento. CA 9S814 l MelUnv AcJdrns P 0 Box 100. Sacr11tnento, CA 95812-01 00 I www waterbOarch ca gov City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 10:29 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:W L Martin <wlmartin361@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 10:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Comment on Revisions to Bay-Delta Plan Phase 1 SED Attachments:Graph with jobs, water use data, 2010-2016.pdf; Comment on Revisions to Bay-Delta Plan 8-16-18.pdf Hello Palo Alto City Council Members,    Please find attached my comments on the revisions to the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) revisions to  their final Phase 1 SED. These comments were submitted to the SWRCB on July 26, 2018.    Please also find attached 2 graphs, showing that during the most recent drought, employment grew substantially, both  in absolute terms and in terms of water delivered per employee.    Thank you very much for considering my comments.    William L. Martin  Volunteer, Water Committee, San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club  Wlmartin361@gmail.com    1 August 16, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Bay-Delta Water Quality Plan Update, Phase 1 Final SED: Comments on Appendix K Dear Council members, Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) final Supplementary Environmental Document (SED). My name is William L. Martin. I am a volunteer member of the Sierra Club, specifically on the Water Committee of the San Francisco Bay Chapter. On page 29 of Appendix K of the final SED, I found the following statement: “The LSJR flow objectives for February through June shall be implemented by requiring 40 percent of unimpaired flow, based on a minimum 7-day running average, from each of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers. This required percentage of unimpaired flow, however, may be adjusted within the range allowed by the LSJR flow objectives through adaptive methods detailed below.” Since the SWRCB’s initial published draft in September 2016, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) has been opposed to the new flow requirements in the above quote. For example, here is a quote from an Opinion piece published in the San Francisco Chronicle in October, 2106: “Our initial economic analysis of the first iteration of this plan forecast up to 51 percent rationing, resulting in 140,000 to 188,000 jobs lost in the Bay Area.” Harlan Kelly, Jr., and Nicole Sandkulla, San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 2016, p. E7. In the nearly two-year timeframe since that Opinion piece was published, I, along with many other concerned citizens, have examined the information the SFPUC has used to justify its opposition to the SED. Our examination has led to several in-person meetings with SFPUC staff and contractors. Our overwhelming conclusion: the SFPUC has misled the public, used flawed analysis and reasoning, and does not represent the views of its customers or its constituents. This comment letter is my attempt to summarize our research into the shortcomings of the SFPUC’s arguments in opposition to the flow requirements in the final SED. 1. The socioeconomic study, used to justify the massive job losses in the Oct. 2016 Opinion piece, is seriously flawed. The SFPUC and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) contracted with The Brattle Group to produce a socioeconomic study (1) forecasting the job and sales losses that might occur if a 40% unimpaired flow requirement was implemented. The analysis assumes that BAWSCA’s water allocation rules are implemented for all levels of rationing, whereas the rules only apply up to 20% rationing. Any water allocation decisions made beyond the 20% rationing level must be decided in meetings among the SFPUC and BAWSCA. These meetings will occur in unknown circumstances at some future time. Any forecasts which relies on some unknown outcome from these meetings are highly speculative and should be treated as such. Specifically, the statements 2 about significant job and sales losses in the San Francisco Chronicle Op-Ed from October 9, 2016 are highly speculative. The analysis treats all future and forecasted events as equally probable. Using probability analysis allows us to rank related but uncertain, future events by their likelihood of occurring. This exercise can help us funnel our scarce resources to projects most in need of attention. One examples where this type of reasoning could enhance our understanding of uncertain, future events are Tables 5.3-4 in The Brattle Group’s report of January 2018. A 10% shortage scenario is much more likely to occur than a 60% one, yet the analysis treats them as equally likely. This is faulty economic reasoning. The much greater economic damage forecasted at the 60% shortage level is much less likely to occur at all, if ever. Probability analysis allows us to apply a “discount rate” to that economic damage. That helps us weigh the importance of actions taken to avoid the 60% shortage scenario. That is, we need to plan ahead for a 10% shortage scenario much more seriously than other scenarios. In the last drought no SFPUC or BAWSCA allocation rules were applied because water customers conserved in response to the Governor’s mandate rather than the SFPUC’s. This is a significant fact that casts substantial doubt on whether or not the modeled results would ever materialize. Note that Governor’s order required the SFPUC regional water supply area to conserve at a minimum of 8% reduction vs. water use in 2013, the “base year.” Instead, the Bay Area responded by saving about 23%. Given the overall success of the Governor’s mandate, it is highly likely that any future Governor would act the same way. The model ignores this highly probable event. The Brattle Group’s research concluded that an increase of 1% in the price of water led to an approximate 0.20% reduction in water use. In economic terms, this represents a slight, negative price elasticity; that is, a higher price leads to slightly lower consumption. The small effect means that water pricing is “inelastic,” meaning that price increases have only a small effect on water consumption. The Brattle Group’s report relies on this research as an important basis for their analysis of socioeconomic effects. However, as noted in the previous paragraph, Bay Area water consumers responded much more strongly to the Governor’s mandate to reduce water consumption than they did to price increases. This fact seriously weakens The Brattle Group’s conclusions. In economic terms, water consumption is highly elastic when reductions are mandated by the State. Yet The Brattle Group’s report completely ignored this obvious fact in its analysis, focusing only on price signals. A second problem with using price increases to measure changes in water consumption: water is not like other economic goods. Their analysis uses a standard economic theory called “willingness to pay.” This attempts to measure what water consumers are willing to pay to avoid rationing. The problem with this reasoning is that, for the vast majority of Bay Area water consumers, there is no “price” which they can pay to get more water during a serious drought. Unless a household is wealthy enough to buy a water truck or a large tank and have it installed on their property and regularly refilled, they simply can’t buy more water in a true rationing scenario. No Bay Area water consumer has a choice of water provider. No Bay Area water consumer has the ability to negotiate for a better price. These facts illustrate the flawed reasoning that underlies The Brattle Group’s report. The Brattle Group’s report did not consider any mitigating actions which the SFPUC or BAWSCA might make in response to drought conditions. For example, the various water agencies that make up BAWSCA 3 are allowed as part of their contractual agreements to transfer water among themselves. These potential transfers could reduce the negative socioeconomic effects of water rationing by allowing those agencies with more water to transfer that excess to other agencies as necessary (2). Also, as the SWRCB notes in Appendix L of the final Phase 1 SED, the SFPUC could purchase water the Modesto or Turlock Irrigation Districts in a serious drought scenario. These types of purchases have happened in the past, and therefore could have been modeled in The Brattle Group’s report, but they failed to do so. The Brattle Group’s report assumes the SFPUC's 8.5 year drought planning model continues. This model is 2.5 years longer than any drought the SFPUC has experienced. While it is good to be prepared for an extended drought, preparing for a drought 40% longer than the worst drought experienced seems excessive particularly if the SFPUC is unwilling to mitigate the environmental impact of such a long drought model. If the 8.5 year drought model were reduced even modestly, it would have a substantial impact on the level of water cutbacks and adverse economic analysis. In this regard, Appendix L in the Final Phase 1 SED released by the SWRCB only addresses the 6 year drought incurred in the late 1980s- early 1990s period. The SED pointedly ignores the SFPUC’s ‘design drought’ in their response. 2.The SFPUC’s opposition does not represent the views or values of its water customers. In the June 2016 election, Bay Area voters passed Measure AA, voting 70% in favor of a parcel tax to fund restoration projects for San Francisco Bay. That’s over a million votes to fund approximately $500 million worth of restoration projects. 77% of San Francisco voters approved Measure AA. Increased flows through the Delta will enhance the success and viability of these projects, yet the SFPUC opposes them. A recent survey (3) conducted in May 2018 shows that San Francisco’s strong commitment to environmental values has not changed in the past two years. Among other results, the survey shows that 93% conserved water during the most recent drought, and that for 71% of those who conserved, concerns about the environment played a major role. Thank you. Please consider these points whenever the SFPUC or BAWSCA respond to Appendix K of the final SED. William L. Martin San Francisco, CA Wlmartin361@gmail.com (1). “Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Shortages Within the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System Service Area”, prepared by David L. Sunding, Ph.D., January 19, 2018. I am unable to find a URL for the above document. Please contact me at wlmartin361@gmail.com if you need a copy. (2)."Coordinating water conservation efforts through tradable credits: A proof of concept for drought response in the San Francisco Bay area” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017WR020636 (3). Please use the URL below to access the full survey results: https://www.tuolumne.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1805-SFV-Final-Report-PDF-06-29-18.pdf *SFPUC provides 100% of SF water deliveries, lower percentage for San Mateo Sources: SFPUC Annual Reports; California Department of Transportation Economic Forecasts 800,000 850,000 900,000 950,000 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 160,000,000 170,000,000 180,000,000 190,000,000 200,000,000 210,000,000 220,000,000 230,000,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Orange Line: SFPUC Water Enterprise Sales, Fiscal Years ending June 30*. Blue Line: Total Employment for San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, by calendar year Total drop of 23% Total gain of 27% SFPUC Water Deliveries and Two-County Employment, 2010-2016 This graph uses the same data from the previous slide. The line was calculated by dividing total water deliveries by total two-county employment for each year. 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 SFPUC Water Enterprise, Gallons/day delivered per employee Total drop of 39% Why is the information on the previous two slides important? “Our initial economic analysis of the first iteration of this plan forecast up to 51 percent rationing, resulting in 140,000 to 188,000 jobs lost in the Bay Area.” Harlan Kelly, Jr., and Nicole Sandkulla, San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 2016, p. E7. "…significant annual job losses are predicted under all RWS [Regional Water System] supply reduction scenarios…“ “Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Shortages within the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System Service Area,” David L. Sunding, Ph.D., author. January 19, 2018. Executive Summary, p. ix. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 11:12 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Item 5 - Bay Delta Plan Attachments:TRT Comment Letter on Final SED.pdf Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members: I write regarding Item 5 on Monday’s Council agenda dealing with the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. I find the staff report to be extremely biased — only including the BAWSCA/SFPUC perspective, which we (Tuolumne River Trust) can demonstrate is misleading and erroneous. The fact that staff placed this item on the consent calendar suggests a misread of the Palo Alto community. Please pull this item for a proper discussion so we can dig into the facts and analyses for informed decision-making. The staff report focuses on two main things: 1) negotiated voluntary settlements, and 2) the SFPUC Alternative. I have personally been involved in voluntary settlement negotiations with the SFPUC, BAWSCA and others starting four years ago. This is not a new concept. Our discussions have been covered by a confidentiality agreement, so I cannot provide details, but the fact that four years have passed without much progress should tell you something. At this point, this is just a stall tactic. Regarding the SFPUC Alternative, I attach TRT’s comments to the State Water Board. Their plan simply won’t work in the absence of adequate flows. For example, floodplain habitat, which is critical for juvenile salmon and rearing, could be improved, but if it doesn’t inundate, it’s useless. The approach proposed by the SFPUC has been tried since 1995, and in that time period environmental conditions have only gotten worse. The State Water Board has proposed adaptive management, which means we learn and adjust as we go. If measures in the SFPUC Alternative are successful at achieving goals and objectives, than flow requirements would be reduced. If the SFPUC is truly confident that its alternative will work, it seems they should embrace this process. They haven't. They simply want a check list (adding spawning gravel, planting trees, attempting to control invasive species, installing a barrier weir, etc.), and if these measures don’t work, too bad, they met their obligations. This is unacceptable. We can continue to have a thriving economy while also improving the Tuolumne and Bay-Delta ecosystems. If you haven’t had a chance to view our 8-minute video, I encourage you to do so in advance of Monday’s meeting — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be We have shared our video with staff and provided an in-person presentation, yet not a single one of our points made it into the staff report. This is extremely disappointing. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Peter Drekmeier ----------------------- Peter Drekmeier  Policy Director  Tuolumne River Trust  peter@tuolumne.org (415) 882-7252 OFFICES 57 Post Street, Suite 711 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 882-7252 829 Thirteenth Street Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 236-0330 67 Linoberg Street Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 588-8636 www.tuolumne.org BOARD MEMBERS John Nimmons , Chair Harrison “Hap” Dunning, Vice Chair Camille King, Secretary John Kreiter, Treasurer Eric Heitz, Chair Emeritus Susan Stern, Imm. Past Chair Cindy Charles Kerstyn Crumb Bob Hackamack Bill Maher Len Materman Marty McDonnell Eric Riemer Sue Ellen Ritchey ADVISORS John Amodio Abigail Blodgett Karyn Bryant Sally Chenault Ann Clark, Ph.D. William Collins Eddie Corwin Joe Daly Heather Dempsey Tim Eichenberg R Adm. James B Greene, Jr, USN (ret.) Chris Guptill Samuel A. Harned Noah Hughes Brian Korpics Cecily Majerus Homero Mejia Gerald Meral, Ph.D. Amy Meyer Jenna Olsen Jennifer Pierce Richard Roos-Collins Jon Rosenfield, Ph.D. Norwood Scott Ron Stork Patricia Sullivan Steve Welch Holly Welles, Ph.D. Bart Westcott Jennifer White, Ph.D. John Woolard July 26, 2018 Felicia Marcus, Chair State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Comment Letter – Revisions to Proposed Bay-Delta Plan Amendments Dear Chair Marcus: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the final SED for Phase 1 of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. The Tuolumne River Trust agrees with the State Water Board’s approach of basing instream flow requirements on a percentage of unimpaired flow. In fact, contrary to its public position on the Bay Delta Plan, The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) embraces this approach in its Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy: It is our policy to operate the water system in a manner that protects and restores native fish and wildlife downstream of our dams and water diversions, within reservoirs, and on our watershed lands. Releases from reservoirs will (consistent with our mission described above, existing agreements, and applicable state and federal laws), mimic the variation of the seasonal hydrology (e.g., magnitude, timing, duration, and frequency) of their corresponding watersheds in order to sustain the aquatic and riparian ecosystems upon which these native fish and wildlife species depend.1 We believe it was disingenuous of the SFPUC to have submitted an alternative proposal to the State Water Board along with its comments on the Draft SED for the Bay Delta Plan that proposed a different approach to instream flows. The SFPUC Alternative to promote the expansion of fall-run Chinook salmon and Oncorhynchus mykiss populations in the lower Tuolumne River while maintaining water supply reliability (submitted on March 16, 2017) focuses almost exclusively on non-flow measures, such as habitat restoration and predator control, and fails to acknowledge that the Tuolumne’s instream flows are currently inadequate to: 1) maintain water quality conditions associated with cold-water fisheries, 2) inundate off-channel, floodplain habitat that is critical to rearing and outmigration of juvenile fish, 3) encourage growth of native streamside riparian vegetation, including cottonwoods; 4) repress invasions of the Tuolumne River 1 SFPUC Water Enterprise Environmental Stewardship Policy – http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=181 2 by non-native species such as bass and water hyacinth; and 5) improve water quality conditions in the lower San Joaquin River and southern Delta. Adequate flows are necessary to increase fish incubation and migration success via improved water temperatures, dissolved oxygen (including intra-gravel conditions, which are negatively impacted by sediments deposited in low-flow conditions) and other water quality parameters, as well as by increasing inundation of key rearing habitats. The net result of providing adequate flows in the Tuolumne River will be to restore a functioning river ecosystem in which native fish are favored over non-native predators. History has shown that non-flow measures, in the absence of sufficient instream flow, are destined to fail. In 1995, the SFPUC and Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts entered into a Settlement Agreement with many of the parties that remain interested in the health of the Tuolumne River today, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game (now Dept. of Fish and Wildlife), and a number of NGOs. The 1995 Settlement Agreement arose out of Article 37 of the original 1964 license for the Don Pedro Project issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (then the Federal Power Commission) which required that dam releases and operations be modified upon the recommendation of the California Department of Fish and Game after the first 20 years of operation of the Don Pedro Project in order to maintain the salmon fishery. The 1995 Settlement Agreement’s three objectives for the recovery of Tuolumne River Chinook salmon were to: 1) increase naturally occurring salmon populations, 2) protect any remaining genetic distinction, and 3) increase salmon habitat in the Tuolumne River. The basic approach of Agreement was to rely heavily on non-flow measures, in particular predator habitat reduction projects, to improve the Chinook salmon run. While the Agreement did include a small increase in flows, the increase was insignificant. Despite the best efforts of the Irrigation Districts and others to improve habitat in the river for salmon, the fall run Chinook salmon population has actually decreased since 1995. In short, the 1995 Settlement Agreement failed to meet its goal of recovery of Tuolumne River Chinook salmon. It failed to increase naturally occurring salmon populations, and it failed to protect any remaining genetic distinction. And even though there was a focus on increasing salmon habitat, it failed in many respects to do that as well. We believe the primary focus on physical habitat manipulations, with a much smaller emphasis on flow measures, is the primary reason for this failure. The 1995 Settlement Agreement also had a significant focus on reducing predators and predator habitat, and provides a good lesson in misplaced priorities. The Special Run Pool (SRP) 9 project was designed to reduce predator habitat by filling in an old in-channel gravel pit that had become excellent habitat for predator fish, primarily large-mouth bass. After expending approximately $2.8 million, the project failed to reduce predator habitat. In fact, by the Districts’ own admission, the project simply exchanged one non-native predator (largemouth 3 bass) with another (smallmouth bass). The Districts’ post-project monitoring report was very clear about the impact of high flows in affecting predator habitat. Here is an example of what the report had to say about flows and predator habitat: During extremely wet years, high flows can flush largemouth bass out of a stream, but typically a sufficient number of adults can find shelter in flooded areas to repopulate the stream during lower flow conditions (Moyle 2002). During the years following the flood, largemouth bass abundance was controlled by spring and summer flow conditions that were unfavorable for reproduction. Largemouth bass require low water velocities and warm water temperatures to reproduce. (Moyle 2002, Swingle and Smith 1950, Harlan and Speaker 1956, Mraz 1964, Clugston 1966, Allan and Romero 1975, all as cited in Stuber et al 1982) (p 130). Unfortunately, despite the many lessons we have learned through the implementation of the actions included in the 1995 Settlement Agreement (and similar habitat-centric approaches throughout the Central Valley, such as Calfed and CVPIA/AFRP), the SFPUC Alternative to the State Water Board Plan continues to emphasize the same myopic approach. Indeed, the flow- related aspects of the SFPUC Alternative are in some respects regressive from the current flow schedule. Very simply, we believe the SFPUC Alternative is doomed to fail and would generally be a misuse of taxpayer and ratepayer money, as well as a violation of the SFPUC’s (and Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts’) responsibility to protect the public trust. We believe the fundamental premise of the SFPUC Alternative is flawed for several reasons. First, there is no unifying ecological principle that guides the SFPUC Alternative. Rather, the SFPUC Alternative attempts to replace the functions of flowing water (e.g., sediment mobilization, invasive species control, recruitment of desirable native riparian vegetation and inundation of rearing habitat) with costly, manual actions, which the SFPUC asserts will lead to the expansion of salmon and steelhead populations, despite evidence to the contrary. As we describe above, a similar approach was taken in the 1995 Settlement Agreement that did not result in increased numbers of native fish species. As described in the Recovery Plan for the Evolutionary Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of California Central Valley Steelhead (NMFS 201x), a salmon and steelhead recovery plan must be based on two key salmonid conservation principles. First, is that functioning, diverse, and interconnected habitats are necessary for a species to be viable. Put simply, the full ecosystem needs to be restored, not just a limited set of specific elements that are part of the ecosystem. Salmon and steelhead recovery cannot be achieved without providing sufficient habitat throughout the full spawning, rearing and migratory route. The SFPUC Alternative’s proposed actions to modify spawning and in-channel rearing habitat 4 are very limited geographically, and they ignore the need for habitat improvements in the Tuolumne River corridor and downstream as far as the Delta. Second, a successful restoration strategy must address the four attributes of fish species viability (spatial structure, diversity, productivity and abundance) as outlined in McElhany et al. (2000). The Recovery Plan for the Evolutionary Significant Units of Sacramento River Winter- Run Chinook Salmon and Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon and the Distinct Population Segment of California Central Valley Steelhead (2014) summarizes these attributes: Abundance and population growth rate are self-explanatory parameters that are clearly important to species and population viability, while spatial structure and diversity are just as important but less intuitive. Spatial structure refers to the arrangement of populations across the landscape, the distribution of spawners within a population, and the processes that produce these patterns. Species with a restricted spatial distribution and few spawning areas are at a higher risk of extinction from catastrophic environmental events (e.g., a single landslide) than are species with more widespread and complex spatial structure. Species or population diversity concerns the phenotypic (morphology, behavior, and life-history traits) and genetic characteristics of populations. Phenotypic diversity allows more populations to use a wider array of environments and protects populations against short-term temporal and spatial environmental changes. Genetic diversity, on the other hand, provides populations with the ability to survive long-term changes in the environment. It is the combination of phenotypic and genetic diversity expressed in a natural setting that provides populations with the ability to adapt to long-term changes (McElhany et al. 2000). The SFPUC Alternative provides no targets for population abundance, growth rate or phenotypic/genetic diversity. Rather, the proposal provides an estimate of what the biological outputs of its approach will be, rather than establishing biological goals at the outset and designing conservation actions in support of achieving those goals. This approach is backward. Biological targets that comply with and articulate existing City, State and Federal policies should be defined in specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and time bound (SMART) terms in order to set the stage for the overall scope and specifics of recovery actions. These targets must be the driving force behind the SFPUC’s alternative plan to meet its obligations under the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Act, Federal and State Endangered Species Acts and the Public Trust Doctrine. As to spatial structure, the SFPUC Alternative relies heavily on two stages of salmonid life cycle (spawning and egg incubation) and a portion of a third stage (juvenile migration). By restricting actions to benefit spawning and egg incubation habitat, and only a portion of juvenile migration habitat (in-channel rearing habitat above RM 26), the SFPUC Alternative misses opportunities to improve periodically inundated habitat (loosely “floodplains”) throughout the Tuolumne River and into the lower San Joaquin River. Floodplain habitat has been demonstrated to strongly support growth of juvenile salmonids and the spawning and incubation success of other native fish species such as Sacramento splittail. Along the Tuolumne, there is poor 5 channel-floodplain connectivity; thus, there is a significant opportunity to improve productivity of several fisheries that has been completely omitted from the SFPUC proposal. Any improvements to the system that may be achieved upstream are likely to be undermined unless improvements are made along downstream portions of the River as well. Different stretches of floodplain support different life stages of fish species. Additionally, floodplain distribution supports life history diversity, survival in different water year types, and successful outmigration. We believe the proposal should focus not just on habitat quality, but also on the extent and distribution of frequently inundated floodplain habitat needed to support agreed upon fish populations. Finally, in the case of Chinook salmon, the SFPUC Alternative is focused almost exclusively on parr production, rather than providing for successful migration for a range of life history types, including fry, parr and smolts. Restricting the plan to focus primarily on successful parr outmigration will limit the success of the population over the long-run because the lack of phenotypic diversity in migrating salmon will make the population more susceptible to environmental stressors and future environmental changes. Rather than focusing on a single life-history strategy, it is imperative to provide an outmigration environment that improves survival of fry, parr and smolts. We have reviewed initial results of floodplain modeling conducted to date. Although San Francisco contends there is sufficient rearing habitat, we strongly disagree. Our floodplain analysis indicates an inadequate amount or rearing habitat. The SFPUC appears to be confusing rearing “habitat” in the main stem with off-channel rearing habitat needs. Not only are these two different types of habitat, but the SFPUC’s finding of abundant rearing “habitat” only confirms that the mainstem is a warm, shallow, slow moving stream that favors predators over native species and provides inadequate migratory habitat for salmonids and other migratory fishes. A more comprehensive approach to floodplain enhancement and management is needed, including reaches of the lower Tuolumne River below Geer Road. Different reaches of floodplain support different life stages of fish species. Functional floodplain habitat can be restored through flow modifications, topographic modifications, or a combination of both. We believe the SFPUC’s focus on manual predator suppression is a severe weakness of their proposal. There are significant environmental conditions (e.g., warm water temperatures, water velocity, etc.) that support a predator population that also need to be addressed. Additionally, we would prioritize investments that reduce predation pressure while simultaneously addressing other critical stressors (e.g., restoration of floodplain habitat, temperature management, etc.). We want to avoid a situation in which resources are expended without producing measurable results, especially considering that significant resources will be required for successful floodplain restoration. 6 The reality is that the presence of abundant non-native predators is a symptom, not a cause, of the malfunctioning Tuolumne River environment. The manual predator suppression program is a time- and money-intensive strategy that is unlikely to work. Similar strategies (that are much more intensive and better funded) have completely failed in the Pacific Northwest, where the Federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a bounty program for native predators, and scaring away nesting terns and fish-eating marine mammals. Furthermore, predator removal has potential downsides. For example, removing large predatory fish can actually cause an increase in smaller predators. As described above, this is exactly what happened at the SRP 9 project where smallmouth bass replaced largemouth bass. Existing flow schedules for the Tuolumne amount to approximately 20% of unimpaired flow being released for environmental purposes. The SFPUC Alternative proposes minor changes to these schedules, and in wetter years actually reduces the quantity of water released from 300,923 acre-feet under existing rules to an estimated 286,867 acre-feet under the SFPUC Alternative. The bottom line is that the SFPUC Alternative is far below the 60% of unimpaired flow the Water Board’s flow criteria study determined would be necessary to protect fish species in the San Joaquin River basin. It will not achieve the objectives we are pursuing, and likely will not even provide incremental benefits. Finally, while the SFPUC Alternative seeks to promote the expansion of fall-run Chinook salmon and O. mykiss populations in the lower Tuolumne, the three San Joaquin tributaries and associated water purveyors are responsible not only for protecting water quality in the San Joaquin tributaries, but also meaningful contributions to protecting water quality in the lower San Joaquin River and the Delta. Nothing in the SFPUC proposal addresses any obligation to maintain water quality downstream, and thus its scope is too narrow. In summary, the Tuolumne River Trust agrees with the State Water Board’s approach of basing instream flow requirements on a percentage of unimpaired flow. We believe at least 50% of unimpaired flow should be required between February and June. We also agree with the Water Board that a successful restoration plan will include both flow and non-flow elements. The SFPUC and Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts will have many opportunities to test their proposed measures for success. We look forward to working with them to identify the best ways to truly restore the Tuolumne River, and are certain higher flows will play a major role in our success. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Patrick Koepele Executive Director City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jan Altman <jan.a@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan I strongly encourage you to pull this item from the consent calendar for a proper public discussion. It needs to be debated at this Monday's meeting! I also encourage you to support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. We can have both! Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be This matter is too important for the sake of all Palo Altans. Please consider it carefully! Thank you, Jan Altman Resident 20+ years City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Lowe <nancymcdonaldlowe@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:36 AM To:Council, City; Drekmeier, Peter Subject:Please adopt a position aligned with the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan City Council: Please pull the item which is in opposition to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan from the consent calendar to allow a proper public discussion of it. I encourage you to support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. We can have both! Nancy McDonald Lowe 2338 Amherst Street Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Geoff Ball <ghball@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear Council Members, Please pull the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan from the consent calendar this coming Monday so that it can be properly explored and discussed in a public meeting. Respectfully yours, Geoff Ball Geoff Ball, Ph.D. Geoff Ball & Associates 315 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ghball@aol.com, cell: 650-279-9461 www.linkedin.com/in/geoff-ball-5259241 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Sue Purdy Pelosi <sueppr@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta water quality control plan I strongly encourage you to pull the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan from the consent calendar for a proper public discussion. Encourage them to support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. We can have both! — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be. Thank you Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama https://www.linkedin.com/in/suepurdypelosi/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:please pull this from the consent calendar Dear City Council Members, I have worked closely with Peter Drekmeier on several environmental issues. I have found him to be honest and knowledgeable, so that when he tells me something about water and the environment, I trust him. He just informed me that you are planning on adopting a position in opposition to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Please take this item off the consent calendar so that some more public discussion can take place. Two issues that seem to be important to discuss are the efficacy of voluntary settlement negotiations that are being promoted by the alternate proposal to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan and the fact that our climate is changing and  On average, less than 50% of the freshwater flow from the Central Valley reaches the Bay, and in some years, less than 35%. Reduced inflows shifts the size and location of the ecologically-important salinity mixing zone, affecting everything from plankton to marine mammals. Between 1975 and 2014, the natural unimpaired runoff in the watershed was only low enough to create a “supercritically dry” year once, but upstream diversions captured so much runoff during those four decades that the Bay experienced“supercritically dry” conditions in 19 years instead of just one. This is an important issue and deserves to be discussed by the entire council in public. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson 2550 Webster St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pull from Consent Calendar!!! All of you need to discuss and seek out the facts and public input about the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan BEFORE you follow staff recommendation on whether to support or not support it. Please PULL THIS ITEM FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Follow this by placing it on your regular agenda which will allow public input about it and allow all of you to become more knowledgeable about it. Carlin Otto 231 Whitclem Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 7 Carnahan, David From:Peter Broadwell <peter@plasm.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please pull item 5 (water policy proposal) from consent calendar City Council folks - Please get together and pull item #5 from the upcoming consent calendar. I support the State Water Board’s proposal that encourages a co-equal approach to balancing water needs of people and fish (among others). The staff proposal being on the consent calendar prevents public input on this important issue and could lead Palo Alto into the undesirable position of helping kill off fish populations. ;;peter - Peter Broadwell, peter@plasm.com - 2325 Cornell Streat, Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 8 Carnahan, David From:amyerinadams@gmail.com on behalf of Amy Adams <amy_adams@post.harvard.edu> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:monday consent calendar I urge you to pull the Bay Delta Control Plan discussion off the consent calendar. The staff report is misguided and needs input from the council. I know there are environmental stewards among you- this issue needs due diligence! Please support the State Water Board proposal! Thanks so much- Amy Adams -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My email address will sometimes change. Please always use my permanent, forwarding email, amy_adams@post.harvard.edu City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 9 Carnahan, David From:walter sedriks <sedriks@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re Adoption of Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Dear Members of the Council, I strongly urge you to pull the subject item from the consent calendar and allow for a proper public discussion. I would also urge you to support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. We can have both! Sincerely, Walter Sedriks 325 Waverley St Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 10 Carnahan, David From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please remove the Delta plan from the consent calendar Is shocking to have the City Council puts such an important item on the consent calendar when it is so vital to the Quality of life of the Bay Area City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 11 Carnahan, David From:Kathryn Johnston <kathryn.johnston@mac.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please pull the consent doc about Bay Water Plan Hello, City Council,     How very chagrined and disappointed was I to hear that there are plans at the August 20th meeting to disavow the Bay  Water Plan.     This measure should not be rushed through without a lot more City Council and community discussion.     I do not think staff recommendations represent Palo Alto’s best, or most forward‐ looking self.     Kathryn Johnston  325 Channing Ave apt 301  Palo Alto        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:36 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Dave Warner <dwar11@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support Bay Delta Plan; Misleading information must have led to City Manager's Report Attachments:Dave Warner letter to City Council 2018-08-16.pdf Thank you for serving on our city council. Please see attached letter. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Hank Edson <hank.edson@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Attachments:TRT Comment Letter on Final SED.pdf Dear City Council, Please pull the agenda item concerning the council's position on the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan from the consent calendar and make sure this item has proper public discussion. I know many of my neighbors are very concerned about the city's commitment to the ecological health and well being of the Bay Area watershed. The SFPUC alternative, despite unsubstantiated claims that more fish will live with less water, simply applies the same inadequate approach taken since 1995, during which time the salmon population in the Tuolome has plummeted. See attached. If left unaddressed, the loss of this population will have a serious ecological impact on our entire region. We must stop allowing ourselves to look past the consequences of lazy policy decisions. The council should not underestimate the concern of its constituents both that proper procedures and due diligence be followed in the way it adopts its position on issues of significant ecological impact and its over all commitment to protect the environment. Adopting this position without a proper public discussion would be a serious breach of your duty to your constituents. Sincerely, Hank Edson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Diane McCoy <dianemccoy10@comcast.net> Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:19 PM Council, City Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan The San Francisco Bay-Delta An Ecosystem In Crisis - YouTube.webarchive LINK Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I would like to request that you do not adopt the position being proposed this coming Monday night, August 20, to oppose the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Please pull this item from the calendar until a proper public discussion can occur. I encourage you to support the State Water Board’s proposal which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply and protect and restore the environment. Again, please do not adopt the position of opposing the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Diane McCoy Palo Alto Resident 763 Greer Road City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:42 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:jack <jack@mortoncpa.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Water Quality Plan Honorable Members of Council:  Surely you all agree that the community should have a voice in whether the City should  wholeheartedly support the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. So Monday evening the full Council will rise together  to remove the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan item from the consent calendar and allow us all to remind you that  Palo Alto was one of the first communities to care passionately about the quality of the Bay and the Delta.  Former Vice Mayor Jack Morton  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 4:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Heft <paulheft@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 2:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear councilmembers, Peter Drekmeier alerted me to his concern regarding the Bay Delta  Water Quality Control Plan. I hope you will carefully consider his opposition to the staff  recommendation, because I believe that protecting and restoring the environment is a critical  goal—even if that means less water available for our use.    Thanks.    Sincerely,    Paul Heft  2550 Webster St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 4:34 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Stepheny <stepheny@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote for State Water Board Proposal Please do the responsible thing and vote for the State Water Board Proposal.  The staff recommendation on this  proposal takes us in the wrong direction.  We need to follow the 2009 Delta Reform Act updated guidelines, as well as  the recommendation of the Tuolumne River Trust.    Thank you.  Stepheny McGraw  3303 Thomas Drive  94303  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 5:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:pol1@rosenblums.us Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda of August 20, 2018 Dear Councilmembers:  I respectfully request that you withdraw item 5 from the consent calendar of the August 20 council  meeting. The staff  position is not in accord with the environmental principles that Palo Altans hold dear in that it sacrifices Tuolumne River  water flows to save water for a drought of biblical proportions that will not occur. I encourage you to support the State  Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co‐equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply and  protecting  and restoring the environment. A subject of this importance needs to be discussed by the Council with appropriate  citizen feedback.  Dr. Stephen Rosenblum  Santa Rita Avenue  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 5:27 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Katie Bramlett <paloaltokatie@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:We need to talk... about the Bay Delta Plan. Please pull the item from the consent calendar for a proper public discussion. I encourage you to support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. Palo Alto has a strong, proud history of standing on the side of ecological conservation! You are in a position to make a difference! Please protect our environment. Katie Bramlett City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 5:27 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Area Water Quality Control Plan Dear City Council Members, I am extremely dismayed to learn that Palo Alto City staff are encouraging the Council to adopt a position in opposition to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. I just learned that City staff have placed this item on the consent calendar for Monday's City Council meeting which means it could be approved WITHOUT any debate -- unless three Council members pull it for discussion. I understand that the resolution reads if it were written by BAWSCA and it promotes "negotiated voluntary settlements." The State has been facilitating voluntary settlement negotiations for well over a year and they've failed miserably because the water agencies that are opposed to the Plan have refused to budge. Knowledgeable Palo Alto residents believe this City report is blatantly political and misleading. Please pull this item from the consent calendar so it can have a proper public discussion. Please support the State Water Board's proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. NOTHING is more important than protecting the integrity of our water supplies and our environment. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee 410 Sheridan Ave., #216 Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Tincher <vatincher@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Monday, August 20 City Council Meeting - Remove Item 5 from the consent calendar Dear City Council,    Please remove Item 5 regarding the Bay Delta Water Quality Plan from the consent calendar and have a thorough public  discussion before making your decision.     Personally I urge the council to support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co‐equal goals of  ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment.  This is a critical time for our local  environment.   The proposal to increase the unimpaired flow of the lower San Joaquin river is really a part of building  San Francisco Bay resiliency.  Healthy wetlands are the focus of most Bay Area communities through multiple projects  many of which the City of Palo Alto already support.       The City Council has an opportunity which will not happen again for years to address San Francisco Bay resiliency while  maintaining an adequate water supply.  Please take the time to carefully review the information in the updated plan and  presented by others.    Regards,  Virginia Tincher  879 Garland Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:16 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Supervisor Simitian Subject:Please withdraw "Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan" from Palo Alto consent calendar Dear City Council, With an abundance of love and gratitude, I am asking for consideration for my first grandchild, who I hope will grow up in a beautiful California of rivers, fish, and wildlife. I have CC’d Supervisor Simitian as he authored the 2009 Delta Reform Act, which established the Senate’s co-equal goals and initiated the current update to the Bay Delta Plan, which should be SUPPORTED. So, I am asking you to REMOVE the item from the consent calendar in opposition to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Via the consent calendar, staff is recommending opposition and this is wrong. The Plan is a good one, and our city should SUPPORT it. Opposing this plan means letting the population of fish and wildlife decline, and ultimately, fail. Do you think the citizens of Palo Alto would be happy when they found out that staff slipped this past the council? Do you want the council to be seen as being on the side of developers and against the environment? Surely no. What I love most about California is the beauty of the rivers and the wildlife. NOT SUPPORTING the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan sends the message that Palo Alto cares more about development than our wilderness heritage. So I’m writing to ask you to pass a motion in SUPPORT of the BDWQCP. We need to support existing agreements of uninpeded flows in order to maintain the wildlife in and around the rivers. It is unwise — not to mention heartbreaking— to entitle the taking of MORE water from rivers for the sake of development and agribusiness when it’s not even necessary. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:16 AM 3 I hope this state will be a beautiful abundant land for our grandchildren, not just an economic engine with no soul. Please be responsible towards the natural world that sustains the health of us all. Sincerely, Cheryl Lilienstein Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:16 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Susan Brown <einworbs@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please withdraw "Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan" from Palo Alto consent calendar The Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan is a good plan and should be supported. I cannot fathom why the staff is recommending to oppose this plan. Please support the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. -- Susan Brown Palo Alto einworbs@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:16 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:terryt1011@aol.com Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 3:56 AM To:katherine.cushing@sjsu.edu Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: ALERT: Terrible P.A. Staff Recommendation Katherine- please do write today. see below, but the e-mail is easy. it is "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org". see the directions below. to make the printed Council packet, it needs to be received by 3 p.m. today, Friday. I really appreciate your help! Terry 1) Please attend Monday’s City Council meeting, and speak if you’re comfortable doing so. Arrive by 6:30pm and fill out a speaker card, listing item 5 as the issue you would like to address. Each speaker will have up to three minutes. The Council agenda is posted at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=41999.32&BlobID=66273 2) Please send an email to City Council — city.council@cityofpaloalto.org — ASAP, encouraging them to pull the item from the consent calendar for a proper public discussion. Encourage them to support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. We can have both! — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be. You can find some additional talking points at https://www.tuolumne.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Final-SED-Talking-Points.pdf Fun Fact: The 2009 Delta Reform Act, which established the State’s co-equal goals and initiated the current update to the Bay Delta Plan, was authored by former Palo Alto Mayor and current County Supervisor, Joe Simitian when he served in the State legislature. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:16 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Fitton <dvfitton@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 9:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Palo Alto City Council,    Please pull the item from the consent calendar for a proper public discussion.   Please support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co‐equal goals of ensuring reliable water  supply and protecting and restoring the environment.     Virginia and Don Fitton  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 4:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 10:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Remove from consent calendar Item 5 on Monday's consent calendar rubber stamps the state water resources control board's bay delta plan...............Really! Do you not believe this extremely important issue deserves a debate? Thank you Paul Machado City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 4:26 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:terryt1011@aol.com Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Aug. 20 Council meeting; Restore the Delta Mayor Kniss and Members of the Council: I am writing to urge you to: 1. Remove item 5 from the consent calendar; and 2. Send an e-mail from the Mayor on Tuesday, August 21 to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) supporting their proposal to restore some of the natural water flow to the Delta. Because the public comment period, ends on August 22, I suspect a snail mail letter will not arrive on time. I apologize for being unable to attend your Council meeting. I do not have a caretaker for my wife, who has severe Alzheimer's. Here are some of the reasons that the City should support the SWRCB in establishing minimum unimpaired flow to the Delta: 1. It is the right thing to do; 2. Palo Alto has proven itself capable of doing well in spite of the two most serious droughts in our history; 3. Mediation of Delta issues is a fraud, being suggested to prevent action that actually can address our water problems. 4. This issue is important enough that it should be publicly discussed in the future. Some elaboration: 1. It is the right thing to do!!! Palo Alto justifiably feels it is a very environmentally friendly city. We all know that the state's most important natural asset is severely compromised- the Delta and Central Valley, which gets 50% of the waterflow in the state. Yet, San Joaquin Valley water interests have taken so much water out of the upper San Joaquin River that it did not reach its intersection with the Merced River for 50 years. do we want that for the entire Sacramento- San Joaquin system? I grew up in Sacramento, and my father was Chief Engineer for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board from 1956-70. He was also an avid fisherman, and we went out on the Delta and Central Valley streams on weekends. In 1964, my college roommate introduced me to water skiing on the Delta, which was then entirely freshwater. I have seen the destruction of the Delta first hand. Fish, animals, and plants have disappeared. In 1979-84, I commuted to Sacramento to head a state environmental department. I was shocked to learn that the freshwater habitat of the Delta was being annihilated by salt. Prior to the export of water from streams, saltwater only reached Antioch. By 1979, it was up to Rio Vista. The Delta evolved in freshwater, and now it has too much salt. The Public Trust doctrine in the California Constitution requires natural resources to be managed to benefit all Californians. In 1982, the SWRCB required the City of Los Angeles to reduce its diversion from the six creeks flowing into Mono Lake. The courts upheld this requirement, which includes maintaining the lake's level in low water years, and increasing it in high rainfall years. Does this sound similar to the Delta? We can accomplish restoring the Delta. 2. Palo Alto has proven itself capable of doing well in spite of the extraordinary 1976 and 2016 droughts. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 4:26 PM 3 When I took California Geography at UC Davis, my professor described the Bay Area and Central Valley as deserts. "Drought" is actually a permanent condition here, and we should institute permanent programs to conserve water and increase efficiency. In my opinion, the City has done a good job of that. As a result, the severe droughts have not had a serious effect on the City. For example, we have our groundwater available, and it was the City's water supply until the 1950s. We did not touch it in those really bad droughts. The City is well enough off to give some of its water to East Palo Alto, an action universally approved by everyone that I know. At the August 1 UAC meeting, staff told his that we have a surplus of recycled water. While the Stanford business park is about to use it, Stanford "resists" its use on campus. That is a lot of grass getting drinking water. Campus use of recycled water would make local streams much healthier. We have hardly touched other potentials, like graywater and stormwater runoff storage. Friends put tanks in their front and back yards to capture runoff on their own property. They find it meets all of their needs for watering their lawn in the front, and watering their fruits and vegetables in the backyard. You may recall that in June, California voters passed a measure to provide financial incentives to stormwater storage and use. The point: Palo Alto is well placed to handle any of its water needs. The SWRCB action presents no threat to us. 3. Mediation. As full time Chairman of the California Waste Management Board, I was the first government department in the country to use environmental mediation. All parties must agree, or mediation is meaningless. However, for 10 years mediation on Delta issues was attempted by President Clinton, his successor President Bush, and Governors Wislon, Davis, and Schwarzenegger. This was called the Cal-Fed process. Yesterday, Sunnyvale Councilman Gustav Larsson, chair of BAWSCA, e-mailed me "I must confess to not knowing about the Cal-Fed process. I read up on it and now appreciate what an utter failure it was." Mediation is only being proposed as a ploy to avoid regulation by the SWRCB. 4. Having an open process in Palo Alto. In my opinion in my few years on the UAC, there have been a lot of agenda items that are a lot less significant than the City's role in water. The SWRCB regulatory policy began a few years ago, yet nothing was brought to the UAC or Council. In 2016, city staff sent the SWRCB a letter without UAC or Council involvement. Similarly, with the final day of comment being Wednesday, Aug. 22, no item was agendized until I commented on it at the UAC on August 1. Unfortunately, water experts who think they know more than us have used this strategy for a long time. Out of sight is out of mind. Basically, in 1982, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups referended an attempt to divert even more water from the Delta. The project, called the Peripheral Canal, lost by 58%, and our county voted against it 92-8. In 2016, 75% of Palo Altans voted to tax themselves to help restore the baylands (Measure AA). Simply put, I believe the public wants the Delta restored and sustained. Palo Alto has engaged, well educated residents. We have found that the public airing of issues provides better results than hidden actions by staff. Trying to hide things does not work. While I could argue the point all day, you are spared that. I ask only that you do the right thing, and support the SWRCB in establishing minimum flows of unimpaired water in the Central Valley. Terry A. Trumbull Lecturer, Environmental Law and Policy San Jose State and Santa Clara Universities City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Frost <mr.michaelfrost@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear Palo Alto City Council, Please do not adopt a position in opposition to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan! Putting this incredibly important item on the consent calendar without a proper public discussion cuts to the core of our democracy (in a negative way)! Nothing is more important than water in CA. Fish are a leading indicator of the health of this region. A Delta that cant support native fish cannot supply clean drinking water, clean ground water, or safe irrigation water. The algae blooms that so recently wreaked havoc in Florida can also happen here. There are no jobs on a dead planet. Palo Alto is a world leader in environmentalism. Please give the public a proper chance to discuss/debate this position. Please support the State Water Board’s proposal, which aims to achieve the co-equal goals of ensuring a reliable water supply AND protecting and restoring the environment. We can have both! — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be. The 2009 Delta Reform Act, which established the State’s co-equal goals and initiated the current update to the Bay Delta Plan, was authored by former Palo Alto Mayor and current County Supervisor, Joe Simitian when he served in the State legislature. Thanks, Michael Frost 650-793-0654 Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 10:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Subject:TRT Response to CM Tanaka Question Attachments:Attachment D.pdf Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members: The Tuolumne River Trust and our supporters are grateful to the City for taking up the issue of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, and moving the item from the consent calendar to the action agenda for Monday’s meeting. Thank you very much! You may wonder why we care so much about your opinion on this issue. The reason is that the Bay Delta Plan is one of the most profound environmental issues facing the Bay Area, and yet it has never been properly vetted in a public forum. Astonishingly, the SFPUC has discussed this issue in public only once, way back in January of 2017. As a result of pressure from environmental organizations, they have now scheduled a public hearing on August 28, a week after the State Water Board hearing. Meanwhile, the SFPUC has discussed the issue several times in closed session — we don’t know how many times because their agendas are vague (they list a California legal code, but say nothing about the Bay Delta Plan). The process has not been transparent. Unfortunately, City of Palo Alto staff have fallen into the same pattern as others, and just repeat information they receive from BAWSCA and the SFPUC, without any of their own analysis. And they have ignored information we have shared, which is backed up by facts and figures. For the first time, we have a jury — the Palo Alto City Council — who will determine which side has a more convincing case. We greatly appreciate you taking on this role! I will be responding to staff’s responses to questions from Council, starting with Council Member Tanaka’s question. CM Tanaka: Does endorsing this mean we endorse cutting Palo Alto’s water usage by roughly 50% as the plan goals state (to increase flows on the Tuolumne River by 40%)? TRT Response: Staff’s response just repeats the SFPUC/BAWSCA line, without any explanation. Council deserves a much better answer. Here it is. The Bay Delta Plan would increase unimpaired flows (what would exist in the absence of dams and diversions) in the Tuolumne River from an average of 21% between February and June to 40%. Over the course of a year, this would result in 14% more unimpaired flow in the River. The additional releases would be the responsibility of the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts and the SFPUC. TRT has modeled what would happen if water demand rebounded to pre-drought levels (223 million gallons per day [mgd]), the Bay Delta Plan’s 40% of unimpaired flow were in place, and we faced a reoccurrence of the six-year drought of record (1987-1992). We assumed there would be no rationing in years one and two (since we wouldn’t know we were in a drought), 10% rationing in years three and four, and 20% rationing in years City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:20 AM 2 five and six. Our model showed that the SFPUC could manage the drought with water left over in storage. I attach a description of our model. The SFPUC has accepted our model as accurate. However, the SFPUC is planning for an 8.5-year “design drought,” which combines the two worst droughts of the latter half of the last century — 1987-1992 followed immediately by the driest two-year period on record, 1976-77. The figures they present are based on 2040 demand projections, not their own (250 mgd) but assuming Plan Bay Area growth projections are accurate (265 mgd). The SFPUC treats every year as if it were the beginning or middle of their design drought, so according to their policy, even if all of their reservoirs were full (enough water to last six years under pre-drought demand), they would begin rationing almost immediately. This is how they come up with the figures presented by staff. Their figures could be anything, depending on the drought horizon they embrace. If the SFPUC implemented it’s rationing policy under the circumstances we modeled (223 mgd demand and 40% of unimpaired flow), they would end up with 576,000 acre-feet of water in storage at the end of the six- year drought of record, and then their reservoirs would fill, as they did following the 1987-1992 drought. To put this in perspective, 223 mgd equals 250,000 acre-feet per year). Therefore, the SFPUC would end up with more than two year’s worth of water in storage, and the extreme rationing they would have required would have been unnecessary. So, the question is whether it's prudent to plan for a drought that combines the two worst droughts from the latter part of the last century, even if such a policy leads to the total collapse of the Tuolumne and Bay-Delta ecosystems. I would hope we all would say no. Especially given the fact that we have a huge buffer against drought in the form of agricultural water. Like the State average, about 80% of the developed water (that which is used by humans) from the Tuolumne is used for agriculture, and 20% goes to urban use in the Bay Area. Palo Alto purchases water from the SFPUC at about $2,200 per acre-foot. Farmers in Stanislaus County purchase Tuolumne River water for about $20 per acre-foot. Even considering the multiplier effect (production of crops makes up 29% of the total value, and labor, processing and distribution the rest), the total value of an acre-foot of water in an agricultural community is less than what Palo Alto pays for water from the SFPUC. In other words, we could pay an irrigation district enough to compensate farmers, laborers, processors and distributors exactly what they would have made from the water (and they wouldn’t have to do any work), at a price that is less than what we pay the SFPUC. Would an irrigation district sell us water? The only other time the SFPUC needed to buy water was during the 1987-1992 drought (when conditions for the SFPUC were very different than they are today, which I will explain below). The SFPUC was successful at purchasing water. And now we have dramatically improved interties between water agencies, allowing even more potential water transfer partners. Even if the irrigation districts were to act against their own financial self-interests, and refused to sell water to the SFPUC just to spite them, the State would step in and facilitate a sale. The State would never allow the Bay Area to go dry. Agriculture contributes only 2% of the State economy. Compare that to the economies of San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Here’s the difference between conditions during the 1987-1992 drought and today: 1) heading into 1987, water demand was at its highest ever (290 mgd, compared to 175 mgd in 2016 or 200 mgd this year); 2) Cherry Lake, the SFPUC’s second largest reservoir (75% of the capacity of Hetch Hetchy) had to be drained for maintenance in 1989; and 3) the SFPUC adopted a “Water First” policy after the 1987-1992 drought, which prioritizes water supply over hydropower generation. As mentioned above, if the drought of record were to reoccur and the Bay Delta Plan were in effect, we would not need to purchase any additional water. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:20 AM 3 Bottom Line: The SFPUC could manage a repeat of the drought of record, even if the Bay Delta Plan were in effect. If we experienced a drought worse than any we’ve ever seen, the SFPUC could purchase water from an irrigation district at a reasonable price. The alternative — embracing the SFPUC/BAWSCA position — would lead to further collapse of the Tuolumne and Bay-Delta ecosystems. Keep in mind that in an average water year, the SFPUC currently has the right to capture 750,000 acre-feet of water from the Tuolumne (this doesn’t include water from Bay Area watersheds), but only uses 250,000 acre-feet per year at pre-drought demand. So even one or two normal years in the middle of an extended drought would lead to a considerable rebound in storage. I would be happy to answer any questions or provide documentation for the information provided above. More responses to Council questions will be forthcoming as time permits on this beautiful Saturday. Thank you again for taking this issue seriously. -Peter ----------------------- Peter Drekmeier  Policy Director  Tuolumne River Trust  peter@tuolumne.org (415) 882-7252 ,, %&,           ,, +(*+ ,+%'$ '/, ;C?K-&!%(!*$'/*'%*-*1: -&</'-$,,  !, +!0:1**'- ,'*'*;@HGF:@HHA</*,'*'-*!&, &*-,-*&!&A?C?5', +,' '-*!$!,13/-+!-*+&++-%, '$$'/!&4 •',$%&'&, !'&$,*1+,%!+AAB%;AD?91<!&A?@G;+'&(*:*'- , %&<3&AD?%;AG?91<!&A?C?+'&-(,%&(*'",!'&+5 • 6+,*!*+,'$!1;!%($%&,,*, @HGF:HA*'- ,<!+!&,5 • @HHD!&+,*%$'/*)-!*%&,+*!&,5 •1+,%+,'*,, !&&!&', *'- ,+,*,+,@3D@F;@3E@B'!&!&,'@HGF%!&-+HE '+,'*<5 • !+*+('&+!$'*DAK'!&*+!&+,*%$'/(*, C, *%&,5 •$-$,!'&+'&',!&$-*'- ,':*%(+3/ ! /'-$*--&!%(!*$'/*)-!*%&,+ -*!&0,&*'- ,+5 •,!'&!&!+?K!&, !*+,,/'1*+'*'- ,;-+&''&#&'/+!,6+*'- ,1,<3@?K!&1*+ , *&'-*3&A?K!&1*+!.&+!05   !$, +%'$+*$,%'+,++-%(,!'&+3/$!.$,*&,!.+&*!'+$+'+ '-$'&+!*5 ,'*+, ,/'-$!&$-&, '-,'%', +%'$+!&$-4 •,!'&!&$.$+;/ &'+*,!'&!&!&3&/ ,!+, (*&,(*1*2<5 •*&,'-&!%(!*$'/*)-!*;+-+,+B?K:D?K<5 •6+'$!,!'&'*(*&,'-&!%(!*$'/;'+, C, *%&,(($12<5 •//,*+-(($!+&9'*'&+*.,!'&%+-*+*'- ,'&$!&5  '$-%& *+*+'$$'/+4 5,*1*5 5',$&&-$-&!%(!*$'/;!-*+<5 5&!%(!*$'/*'%5: -&;!-*+< 5C?K'5: -&-&!%(!*$'/5 5,-$$'/;,*(,-*&!.*+!'&+<!&, $'/*-'$-%&*'%5: -&; **!,!'&!+,*!,+* *+('&+!$'*, +*$++<5 5 '/*-'$-%&*$++*)-!**'%5: -&+'&@HHD'**;!-*+(*'.!1(*# '+#*&+<5 **!,!'&!+,*!,+**+('&+!$'*, +*$++5 5!,!'&$$'/*)-!*1, 1$,$&;%!&-+<5 56+'$!,!'&'*!&*+$'/;DAK'+'&C, *%&,<5 57%&8!++'&, '$$'/!&*,!'&!&'*%-$4@M?3AM?3BM@?K3CM@?K3DMA?K3 EMA?K5 57, * '+++8!&$-$'''&,*'$*$++3.('*,!'&&', *$'+++5 57',$ '++8!+, +-%', !*&/'/&+,*%$'/'$!,!'&; <3%&; <&', * $'+++; <5 5,*.!$$,', *'%, -'$-%&!.*;!-*+(*'.!1(*#'+#*&+<5 5,*.!$$,', *'%1*/,*+ +;!-*+<5 5 '$*'-&/,*.!$$,'5 5',$/,*.!$$,', ; LL<5 57,-,!'&8!+7',$ '++8; <%!&-+/,*.!$$,';<5 5%!&!&+1+,%+,'*;-'$-%&&1*<'$$'/!& /,*1*5    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 1:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Subject:TRT Response to CM Kou's Questions Attachments:Agreement - Supporting Districts on Flows.pdf Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members: Please find below TRT's responses to staff responses to Council Member Kou’s questions about the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. CM Kou: The Tuolumne River Trust provided information that is different from the staff report. Has staff found any factual errors in the TRT video? — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be Staff Response a: TRT: SFPUC’s analysis of the Bay Delta Plan falsely characterizes the anticipated water supply impacts. SFPUC’s analysis is correct. It considers an appropriate design drought (longer than has been observed in the past but realistic given climate change). TRT represents accurately that several other agencies only plan for the minimum drought required by the State, which up until recently was a 3-year drought. TRT neglects to mention that the new State Urban Water Management Plan requires a minimum 5-year drought plan. Given climate change and the high consequences of losing water supply in an extended drought, staff has traditionally been comfortable with the SFPUC’s 8.5 year standard for drought planning. TRT Response: I addressed the design drought in my previous email, but I will comment on a couple of other points here. There’s a big difference between planning for a five-year drought vs. an 8.5-year drought. The SFPUC’s design drought is 41% longer than what the State requires. Is it worth allowing the Tuolumne and Bay Delta ecosystems to collapse for this additional insurance, especially given my earlier comment about the ability to purchase agricultural water at a reasonable cost? The SFPUC adopted its design drought before climate change was a major issue, and the design drought did not include an analysis of how climate change might impact water supply. There is general consensus that as a result of climate change, more precipitation will fall as rain, and less as snow, shifting runoff to earlier in the season. Current thinking is that we will experience greater swings from year to year, some drier and some wetter. The SFPUC, with 1.458 million acre-feet of storage capacity in its reservoirs (enough to last six years), is much better prepared to capture water in wet years for use during dry years than almost any other water agency. Climate change will have some negative and some positive impacts on SFPUC water supply. The negative impacts are more obvious, but I will point out two positive impacts. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:21 AM 2 1) The SFPUC has junior water rights to the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts. The Raker Act, which gave the SFPUC the right capture and divert water from the Tuolumne, guarantees the Irrigation Districts the first 2,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) flowing down the River for most of the year. Between mid-April and mid-June (peak runoff from snow melt), the IDs have the right to the first 4,000 cfs. As peak runoff shifts to earlier in the season, more of it will occur during the time period when the SFPUC has the right to capture flows above 2,400 cfs, significantly improving their water rights. 2) 2017 was the second wettest year on record in the Tuolumne River watershed, but yielded the highest runoff on record. This is because climate change has had a serious impact on forest health, contributing to the 2013 Rim Fire that burned 20% of the Tuolumne watershed. With less vegetation taking up water, more runs off into the River. In fact, some water agencies thin trees in their watersheds to increase runoff. While tragic for forest health, climate change will lead to greater runoff, which will increase water supply. Staff Response b: TRT: The economic study prepared by SFPUC’s expert has been “debunked.” The author of the study is an expert in the field, and the study accurately predicted how the region responded to the most recent drought. Due to the State-mandated water use reduction (16% average across the region), agencies focused of reducing residential and dedicated irrigation customers, and almost no water use reductions were required from businesses. Depending on the BAWSCA agency, reductions of more than 20- 30% will require water rationing by commercial and industrial customers that translates into reduced economic output and job losses. A mandatory water use reduction of 50% would significantly impact all customers. It should also be noted that the economic study is separate from the SFPUC’s modeling of dry-year water supply impacts. This model showed that , at normal water demand levels, 40-50% rationing could be necessary during dry years. Even at current depressed water usage levels, 20-30% rationing would be required in a dry year. The number of dry year shortages would double or triple from the existing projected number of 1 in every 10 years to 2 or 3 in every 10 years. TRT Response: Again, per my previous email, the numbers cited in staff’s response are arbitrary, depending on how long of a drought the SFPUC is planning for and demand projections. We met with Dr. Sunding, who conducted the SFPUC’s socioeconomics studies, and asked him where he got his rationing figures, specifically, whether he used figures from the SFPUC’s design drought. He said, no, he did not use the design drought figures. SFPUC staff then corrected him and confirmed that the figures they provided were based on the design drought. In December of 2016, I was invited to present a workshop before the State Water Board on the SFPUC’s socioeconomics study. My presentation is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJQ5RhdU6vY&feature=youtu.be. It was well-received by the Water Board. Then in January of 2017, the SFPUC had its own opportunity to present a workshop to the Water Board. They did not mention a thing about socioeconomic impacts. At the end of their presentation, one Board member mentioned that she was surprised they didn’t bring up economic impacts (which she added had become very controversial) given they had been the primary focus of the SFPUC's comments during the last round of hearings. She asked if the SFPUC had any comments about socioeconomic impacts. SFPUC staff shuffled around a bit and then said they were updating their study and would submit it with their written comments. What does it tell you that the SFPUC did not address its socioeconomics study in front of a sophisticated audience that was prepared to ask questions? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:21 AM 3 Between 2006 and 2016, water demand in the SFPUC territory dropped by 30%. According to the SFPUC study, this should have resulted in the loss of 25,000 jobs and $7 billion dollars. To the contrary, between 2010 and 2015, 125,000 jobs were added in San Francisco alone and the Bay Area economy grew stronger than ever. Between 2010 and 2016, in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties (which receive almost all of their water from the SFPUC, and make up two-thirds of its customers) jobs increased by 27% while water demand decreased by 23%. How can staff possibly claim that "the study accurately predicted how the region responded to the most recent drought.”? Staff Response c: TRT: The SFPUC has a contractual obligation with the irrigation districts to support their position of fish flow matters. No such contractual obligation exists. The contract cited by the TRT pertained to an expired FERC license for Don Pedro Reservoir, a facility in which the SFPUC holds some storage capacity. The obligation does not pertain any SRWCB proceedings, the current FERC re-licensing proceeding, nor future FERC re-licensing proceedings. TRT Response: I attach the 1995 Agreement between the SFPUC and the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts. Point 7 reads: “The City agrees to support the Districts' negotiating position regarding volumes of water to be provided for fish flows during the FERC mediation process and during any proceedings before FERC relating to that fish flow issue. The State Water Board is required to provide a water quality certification as a condition of the relicensing of Don Pedro Dam (owned and operated by the Irrigation Districts). The Board's decision on instream flow requirements coming out of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan will serve as the foundation for their water quality certification, so it is directly related to FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) relicensing of Don Pedro. The Irrigation Districts received their initial license for Don Pedro Dam in 1966, and the relicensing process began in 2011. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be released this fall or winter. I don’t know why staff refers to an expired license. A dam cannot be operated without a license. A more important contract between the SFPUC and Irrigation Districts is referred to as the 4th Agreement, which dates back to the 1960s. Among other things, it obligates the SFPUC to produce 51.7% of any increase in instream flow required by the Federal Power Commission (now FERC). It is silent on flows required by the State Water Board. Despite this, the SFPUC has assumed the 51.7% figure applies to the Bay Delta Plan, and has used the figure in all of its impact analyses, as have we to compare apples to apples. If the SFPUC’s share of instream flow requirement were proportional to its diversions, it would only be responsible for 20% of the new flow requirement. The 4th Agreement states: "That at any time Districts demonstrate that their water entitlements, as they are presently recognized by the parties, are being adversely affected by making water releases that are made to comply with Federal Power Commission license requirements, and that the Federal Power Commission has not relieved them of such burdens, City and Districts agree that there will be a re-allocation of storage credits so as to apportion such burdens on the following basis: 51.7121% to City and 48.2879 to Districts.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:21 AM 4 As I mentioned above, the Agreement does not mention requirements coming from the State Water Board. The 1995 Agreement states: "This Agreement shall, unless sooner terminated or modified by mutual agreement, extend for the remaining term of the FERC license for the Don Pedro Project (FERC No. 2299), including any annual licenses.” This Agreement references the FERC license, but only with respect to the term of the Agreement. It does not specify that the Agreement applies only to FERC. Therefore, if the 1995 Agreement does not apply to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, as the SFPUC contends, then the 4th Agreement shouldn’t apply either. If this were the case, the SFPUC's obligation to provide 51.7% of any increase in instream flow would not apply, which would dramatically change their economic impact analysis. Staff Response d. TRT: Water can be purchased from other sources, such as agricultural districts, at a reasonable price to make up for shortfalls during a drought. Since 2001 both BAWSCA and the SFPUC have sought to enter into water transfers, specifically to address dry year needs. To date those efforts have been unsuccessful. Parties, including the TRT, have opposed water transfers in the past. TRT Response: As mentioned in my previous email, the only time the SFPUC needed to purchase water from another agency was during the 1987-1992 drought, and they were successful. In 2012, the SFPUC attempted to enter into a water transfer (sale) with the Modesto Irrigation District (MID). At the beginning of negotiations, four of the five Board members supported the sale. The negotiated price was $700 per acre-foot, but it would have been a take-or-pay contract, so the SFPUC would have had to pay for the water whether they used it or not. The SFPUC estimated they might need the water in one out of five years, so the actual cost of water used would have been $3,500 per acre-foot, a burden to be picked up by ratepayers. The SFPUC did not need the water at the time, nor during the drought, nor in the foreseeable future. They were planning ahead to a time when water demand in the SFPUC service territory neared 265 mgd. A number of farmers in the MID service area opposed the water transfer because it would have been long-term, not limited to a drought year or two, and they opposed giving up water to an outside entity. They eventually convinced a majority of the MID Board to oppose the plan. In a situation in which the SFPUC really needed water on a short-term basis, negotiations would have been very different. If need be, the State would step in to facilitate a sale. Staff Response e: TRT: The SFPUC opposed the Bay Delta Plan because they are planning for massive development driven by Plan Bay Area. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:21 AM 5 The SFPUC is not a land use management agency. The SFPUC does not rely on Plan Bay Area but on the growth projections provided by the individual land use management agencies. It should be noted that, even at current depressed water usage levels, 20-30% rationing would be required in a dry year. TRT Response: SFPUC/BAWSCA internal projections have estimated that water demand would be 250 mgd by 2040. However, in its analyses the SFPUC uses 265 mgd for 2040 based on Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area forecasts the addition of 600,000 new people to the SFPUC service territory by 2040. I had an op-ed related to this issue published in last Thursday’s SF Examiner — http://www.sfexaminer.com/prioritizing-san-franciscos-water-supply/ Thank you again for taking the time to learn more about this important issue before deliberating on Monday night. -Peter ----------------------- Peter Drekmeier  Policy Director  Tuolumne River Trust  peter@tuolumne.org (415) 882-7252 AGREEMENT The City and County of San Francisco (the "City") and the Modesto Irrigation District and the Turlock Irrigation District (collectively the "Districts") agree as follows: 1. This Agreement shall, unless sooner terminated or modified by mutual agreement, extend for the remaining term of the FERC license for the Don Pedro Project (FERC No. 2299), including any annual licenses. 2. The Districts will provide all of the water required to satisfy the minimum flow schedules set forth in that certain settlement agreement agreed to by the Districts and the City in the FERC proceeding in Docket No. P 2299-024. 3. In consideration of the payments contemplated in this agreement, the Districts agree, prior to offering water for sale to any out-of-basin entity, to make a good faith offer to the City to sell the water on reasonable, mutually agreeable terms and conditions whenever the Districts, or either of them, detennine that water is available for sale. 4. The City will pay the Districts, in equal monthly payments, the sum of $3,500,000 per year . The first year shall begin and the first payment shall be due and payable on the first day of the first month after the earlier of (a) the effective date of the FERC action ordering the new instream flows or (b) the date when the new instream flows are provided by the Districts, but in no event earlier than October 1, 1995. Interest on past due sums shall accrue at the rate specified in 18 C.F.R § 35.19(a). Up to one-half of the first year's payment may be financed by the Districts at a rate of 8 percent per annum amortized over a period of three years, payable monthly in 3 6 equal installments. 5. The payments due for the sixth year under this Agreement and each year thereafter shall be adjusted to reflect the GDP Deflater index for the most recently available twelve calendar months maintained by the United States Department of Commerce or similar index in the event that index is discontinued. 6. The City may discontinue payments to the Districts provided for in Paragraph 4 on the fifth Anniversary Date or any time thereafter, provided that it has given the Districts not less than one year's prior written notice of such intent. The City in such notice of intent shall state the volumes of water they will provide under each of the water year classifications under Article 3 7 of the FERC license. On such discontinuance the City shall thereafter meet its obligations under Article 8 of the Fourth Agreement. In the event ofa dispute under this paragraph, the City will deposit the payments which would otherwise have been due in the absence of the City's notice of intent into an escrow account until such time as the dispute is resolved.. The City and/or the Districts shall be awarded such portion of the amount in the escrow account as is consistent with the resolution of the dispute under Article 8. In the event ofa dispute under this Paragraph, the Districts shall not be required pursuant to Article 8 to seek modification by the FERC of the water release conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement minimum flow schedules before seeking resolution of the dispute. Pending the resolution of such dispute, the Districts will continue to provide all flows as specified in paragraph 2 above. 7. The City agrees to support the Districts' negotiating position regarding volumes of water to be provided for fish flows during the FERC mediation process and during any proceedings before FERC relating to that fish flow issue. 8. The undersigned agree that this Agreement is subject to approval of their respective governing bodies. The undersigned further agree that they shall recommend approval to such governing bodies, and shall exert best efforts to obtain such approvals in an expeditious manner. 9. The Districts and the City agree that they will cooperate in good faith and expeditiously to develop additional standard contract language to be incorporated in this agreement consistent with the above terms and conditions. Executed this 21st day of April, 1995. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Holzer <mbholzer@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 1:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Subject:San Joaquin Delta Restoration Attachments:TRT Comment Letter on Final SED.pdf Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I much appreciate that you have decided to pull the Staff report supporting a Bay Delta Plan Negotiated Settlement from the consent calendar to open up the topic for public discussion. It's very important for Palo Alto citizens to be able to weigh in on the State Water Board proposal, a proposal which proposes to ensure a reliable water supply as well as protecting and restoring the environment for the Chinook Salmon. The alternative proposal by the SFPUC to the State Water Board is highly flawed in its proposals to salvage the Chinook Salmon population and to manage our water supply. It proposes primarily non-flow measures - habitat restoration and predator control. It fails utterly to recognize that such non-flow mitigation efforts have been failures. Since 1995, the various Irrigation Districts have tried to enable recovery for the Chinook without increasing stream flow, and the numbers have decreased. The attempt to physically increase salmon habitat has not worked, nor has the attempt to reduce predators by filling in a gravel pit that was a habitat for the large-mouth bass. That merely allowed another predator to flourish - the small-mouthed bass. They have also failed to protect genetic distinction. The staff report ignores evidence from research that has already been done on the failure of current Delta habitat restoration (see my discussion below and the attached Toulumne River Trust letter). There are other options than throttling river flow for managing the water crisis bearing down on us as global warming spirals up and up - desalination plants for a start. And a radical suggestion - actually do something Bay Area wide about limiting growth of jobs and population in an area which is essentially a desert. Start telling the tech companies to build branches elsewhere in cities that have sufficient water and need jobs. Start telling the farmers in the valley who want the water diverted to them to grow crops that aren't almonds and rice. And actually DO something about transportation that is not powered by internal combustion engines. I encourage you to support the State Water Board proposal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be. Regards, Mary Holzer More information: - yes I know this is from 2008 but worth reading. http://www.riverpartners.org/news-and-events/newsletters/200803_ChinookSalmon.html Some background on Chinook Salmon decline: Historically, California's patterns of water flow and mountain/valley/delta ecosystems supported the evolution of different races or runs of Pacific salmon populations. Separated by when in the year they enter the Delta, these runs and their reproductive cycles can be quite different and thus can be dramatically affected by man-made alterations in the rivers and the Delta. Case in point - - - Spring-run Chinook salmon, historically the most abundant salmon in the San Joaquin River system, have disappeared from the San Joaquin River and it's tributaries - Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced Rivers. The life cycle City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:21 AM 2 of these Salmon included migration up the tributaries as the snow melted in Spring, the existence of deep, cold pools where they spent the Summer, spawning in the early Fall. Dams on the rivers put an end to this Chinook salmon variety in the San Joaquin River system. Fall-run Chinook survived because they migrate in Fall and spawn in lower elevation spawning beds, thus have continued to exist because because their historic breeding areas are not cut off by the dams. However this does not mean that they are not in trouble. Because of severe flow reduction and the consequent degradation of the river/spawning habitats, their numbers have plummeted over time from multiples of tens of thousands to, in the Tuolumne River, barely 100. Clearly this species is headed for extermination unless something is done to remedy the situation. Although survival of the Chinook salmon is based on more than one restoration strategy, the primary factor is the establishment of a much higher level of unimpaired flow in the San Joaquin River basin. The State Water Board proposes a level of 40% in future operation of the Bay/Delta water systems. To understand why that level of flow is necessary it is important to realize that factors besides the river channel and some level of water flow in that channel that is necessary for salmon to spawn. - Salmon require clear, high-quality, high oxygen, cold-water environments in which to spawn. Low-flow environments have warmer, less oxygenated and cloudy, sediment filled water, which inhibits spawning. - Fed and flushed by Spring run-off, the spawning ecosystem spreads out widely from the river into the adjacent off- channel floodplain habitats where the young fish hatch and grow to the point of migration to the ocean. The flushing action of heavy spring flow is important not only for high water quality, but the strong, cold flow flushes out predator fish - large- and small-mouth bass that feed on salmon eggs and offspring. These predators require warm water and low water velocities to reproduce, a condition encouraged by low, warm spring flow. Other factors: - It is important to encourage and support the growth of native, stream-side vegetation on the banks surrounding the flood plain, thus providing more complex physical habitat structure, with more organic inputs and creating a better overall physiological habitat. - Realization that the reduction in the Chinook numbers and contraction of the spawning areas puts the species at a high risk of extinction from a single catastrophic event like a single landslide. - Reduction of population diversity (because the spawning population and thus population diversity is so low) can affect Chinook behavior (the ability to function in a wider array of environments) as well as reduction in genetic diversity, limiting the ability to survive changes in the environment - e.g. global warming. Which has consequences for food sources. Finally . . . read the Tuolumne River Trust letter. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:James Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 6:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support the State Water Board’s proposal for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. I want the City Council to deny the staff recommendation and instead support the State Water Board’s proposal for the  Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.    Thank you!  James  730 College Ave  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 10:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers:    As a fellow resident of this city, I am writing to request that you look carefully at all of the information  provided by the Tuolumne Trust, which gives good reasons for supporting the State Water Board's proposal  for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.  The river has to be allowed to survive as a river over a long  period of time.  That is the reason the Tuolumne Trust was formed.  Rivers have many purposes and uses.  My  reading of the staff's responses to the Trust's comments seems to indicate a less than complete understanding  of the bigger picture on the part of the staff.  I understand that they have many issues to consider.  And it is  unfortunate that so much of the discussion of these multiple and related issues has occurred behind some  agencies' closed doors.  But in this case I think the State Water Board has a better view.    Therefore I am asking that you deny the staff recommendation and instead support the State Water Board’s  proposal for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.    Sincerely,    Virginia Smedberg  441 Washington Ave  Palo Alto 94301  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Jim Kozelka <jim.kozelka@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 9:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear City Council, Please deny PA staff recommendation and instead support the State Water Board’s proposal for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Please vet this decision carefully and thoroughly to chose a truly sustainable path. Best regards, JK Jim Kozelka 146 Rinconada Ave, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Brown, Jeffrey D. (ARC-TSS)[Analytical Mechanics Associates, INC.] <jeffrey.d.brown-1 @nasa.gov> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 6:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:PLEASE PULL ITEM ID# 9510 (Resolution Supporting a Bay Delta Plan Negotiated Settlement) from the August 20th Consent Calendar Importance:High Dear City Council Members,                    The issue of giving official City support to one of the two competing proposals directed at Tuolumne River  restoration and Bay‐Delta Ecosystem preservation is far too important to be addressed without public input and  discussion, especially given the completely superficial discussions of them – by the Bay Area Water Supply &  Conservation Agency and by the Palo Alto city staff – in your City Council packets. I urge you in the strongest possible  way to pull this item from the August 20th Consent Calendar and schedule it for discussion as a regular agenda item at a  future meeting.    Thank you,  Jeff Brown  660 Lincoln Avenue  Palo Alto 94301  (650) 328‐7191  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:William Reller <wereller@664gilman.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan I do not support the SFPUC’s position on the plan. It is very bureaucratic agency, not responsive to current water quality needs, care of the Tuolumne River, and other. Not in its mandate apparently. I do not understand why city staff simply forwarded the proposal to council anticipating a rubber stamp. The Tuolumne River Trust, which I have supported long term, has supported the position held by the State Water Board. Thank you. Thank you for your service to our community. William Reller wereller@664gilman.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Fred Nichols <fnichols56@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 11:08 AM To:Council, City Cc:Fred Nichols Subject:SWRCB’s proposed Bay Delta Plan Hello members of the City Council: I was surprised to learn that the Council Staff has recommended that you support the position of  The Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) position on water development in the San Francisco Bay, Delta, and  watershed rather than SWRCB’s proposed Bay Delta Plan as written.   I am a long‐retired member of the community of scientists  that for decades has been studying the physical, chemical and biological connections between the San Francisco Bay/Delta and its  watersheds upstream.  Over that same period we became aware that, looking forward, there is not going to enough fresh water  from this large watershed system to meet the ever increasing demands on that water.  There is simply not enough free‐flowing river  water to go around now, and it will only get worse.  Climate change is making the situation look bleak.  Decision makers at all levels  of government should be asking and answering the hard questions such as why we are growing the state’s most water‐intensive, but  non‐essential crops such as cotton, cattle feed, and even almonds that are mostly grown for export?  How are we going to keep salt  water from encroaching farther into the Delta and threatening local water supplies as a direct result of increased diversion of fresh  water away from the rivers and estuary?  It is the fresh water flow down the rivers and through the Delta that prevents this  encroachment.  Even if you are personally not very concerned about the destruction of the ecosystem of the Bay/Delta itself, these  are some of the critical questions that you need to be asking before you think about supporting more water diversion.  You should  discuss these issues in public at your upcoming meeting before you prepare your findings.  Thank you.     Fred Nichols   Long‐time Harker Avenue home owner and former P. A. Planning Commissioner     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Elliot Margolies <elliotspark@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 9:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Remove Bay Delta Water Quality Plan from Consent Cal Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members, Please remove the item regarding the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan from the consent calendar so that you can have a more comprehensive discussion on this critical environmental decision. Global warming is forcing us to think long and hard about our water - and balancing the needs we have for it against the dramatic backdrop of sustainability. Currently, only 21% of the Tuolumne’s unimpaired flow reaches the San Joaquin River. Under the Bay Delta Plan, it would increase to 40% between February and June. Higher flows will improve fish migration, water quality, habitat viability and the salt-freshwater balance in the Delta. I'm heartened by the levels of conservation that we citizens have gotten to in the wake of government policy shifts and think we can do even more if it is kept up as a priority. I'm very interested in farmers' efforts to explore growing less water-intensive crops and using new techniques for irrigation. I think that staff may have over-estimated the ability of the various agencies and other parties to come to a quick negotiated policy consensus given their past inability to do so. I urge your support for the Bay Delta Plan, but at least a more concentrated examination of this important decision. In appreciation of your demanding work. Elliot Margolies 3858 El Centro St. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 5:24 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Peter Drekmeier; kbennett@luxsci.net Cc:A-MIKE BECHLER; Geri Mc Gilvray; IMOGENE AND ROCHARD HILBERS Subject:Re: item 5 Hello,    PLEASE support the BAY DELTA PLAN.    The TUOLUMNE river needs MORE natural flow in order to suppport any of the healthy wild creatures, trees and plants  necessary for all species to survive.     Do not allow the SFPUC to  Keep manipulating their habitat. Look what happened in Yellowstone when killing all the wolves caused the grazing dear  to destroy all the vegetation there. Unbelievable!    Interconnected habitats   are crucial to everything, everywhere.     Healthy water should flow into our bay.    Geri McGilvray   EVERYDAY SAFETY and  WALKABILITY, Midtown, Palo Alto   Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:36 AM 9 Carnahan, David From:Paul Hammes <shalomnature@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 5:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear City of Palo Alto Council,    Please hold a proper public discussion about the city’s support or opposition to the State Water Board’s Bay Delta Water  Quality Control Plan. This should not be done behind the scenes as an item on the consent calendar! The council should  hear from the public and the public should hear the reasons the council has for supporting or opposing this plan.    Thank you,  Paul Hammes  777 San Antonio Rd., Unit #56  Palo Alto, CA  Graduate of Cubberley Senior High school, Wilbur Junior High school and Greendell Elementary school.          City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 9:35 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Trish Mulvey <mulvey@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 8:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:support for State Water Resources Control Board's Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members, Please add this note to your collection of community requests urging you to deny the City staff recommendation and instead strongly support the State Water Board’s well-researched and balanced proposed Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Thanks for your attention to this request. Trish Mulvey 527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 1:48 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Patrick Ferraro <ptferraro5@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 1:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Plan Dear Mayor and Council Members I felt this is journalist wrote a much better piece on this issue than anything else I've read on the issue. San Francisco Is Fighting California’s Plan to Save Salmon. Wait. What? https://www.kqed.org/science/1929999/san-francisco-is-fighting-californias-plan-to-save-salmon-wait-what The writer used many more words to say what I tried to condense in my LTE to the SF Chronicle, which they failed to print: Response to Peter Drekmeier’s Op‐ed on Bay Delta Water Quality Plan.  By Patrick Ferraro, Director Emeritus, Santa Clara Valley Water District,  Adjunct Professor, Santa Clara University and San Jose State University  June 15, 2018  The clash of two over‐arching water policies is preventing the restoration of the Bay Delta’s  ecosystem and its endangered fisheries: The First‐in‐Time system of water rights seniority and the  Public Trust resources that the State must protect for all of California. Regardless of when water  diversions began from the Tuolumne or other rivers tributary to the Delta, each has contributed  to the cumulative damage of the estuary’s health. The State is at long last holistically addressing  the problem by requiring 40% of all the watershed’s tributaries to flow unimpaired into the Delta.  This is helping to restore the highly altered ecosystems, allowing salmon and other species to  recover. Those who have been contributing to the problem the longest are, of course, the loudest  protestors of this proposed water quality plan. Why should only the “junior” water rights holders  continue to be the sole source of restoration water? SFPUC and EBMUD have long operated their  own peripheral conveyance systems, while criticizing diversions from the South Delta as a “water  grab” of “their”(??) water. California remains ONE State, and should act accordingly to protect the  Public Trust that is the Bay Delta Estuary.  Never Thirst!  Pat Ferraro City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 1:48 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:terryt1011@aol.com Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 1:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:KQED Science backs SWRCB on 40% regulation- Bay Delta Water Quality Plan Mayor Kniss and the Council- this came out on KQED. Pat Ferraro was on the board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District for 20 years, and teaches with me in the Environmental Studies department at San Jose State. Terry A. Trumbull terryt1011@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Ferraro <ptferraro5@gmail.com> To: terry trumbull <TerryT1011@aol.com>; Katherine Cushing <Katherine.Cushing@sjsu.edu>; Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2018 12:11 pm Subject: KQED Science nails battle over Bay Delta Water Quality Plan Dear Colleagues; I felt this is journalist wrote a much better piece on this issue than anything else I've read. San Francisco Is Fighting California’s Plan to Save Salmon. Wait. What? https://www.kqed.org/science/1929999/san-francisco-is-fighting-californias-plan-to-save-salmon-wait-what By Patrick Ferraro, Director Emeritus, Santa Clara Valley Water District,  Adjunct Professor, San Jose State University  June 15, 2018  The clash of two over‐arching water policies is preventing the restoration of the Bay Delta’s  ecosystem and its endangered fisheries: The First‐in‐Time system of water rights seniority and the  Public Trust resources that the State must protect for all of California. Regardless of when water  diversions began from the Tuolumne or other rivers tributary to the Delta, each has contributed  to the cumulative damage of the estuary’s health. The State is at long last holistically addressing  the problem by requiring 40% of all the watershed’s tributaries to flow unimpaired into the Delta.  This is helping to restore the highly altered ecosystems, allowing salmon and other species to  recover. Those who have been contributing to the problem the longest are, of course, the loudest  protestors of this proposed water quality plan. Why should only the “junior” water rights holders  continue to be the sole source of restoration water? SFPUC and EBMUD have long operated their  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 1:48 PM 4 own peripheral conveyance systems, while criticizing diversions from the South Delta as a “water  grab” of “their”(??) water. California remains ONE State, and should act accordingly to protect the  Public Trust that is the Bay Delta Estuary.    Never Thirst!    Pat Ferraro  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 3:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Water Decisions Dear fellow residents of Planet Earth, The decisions we make concerning water, needs a FULL discussion. Without it we cannot live, and neither can our environment. We must support the rivers and the natural ecosystem. We are part of the Earth, not separate from it. To balance the amount of water 'we' need, as well as that of our rivers, fish, and flora is a serious discussion. Actually if we really 'got' our interconnection and the climate disruption we are experiencing, huge fires and melting ice caps, it would behoove us to question our assumptions about continued growth, and the acceptance of 'that is just the way it is' to grow an economy. I also strongly do not want to see high rise apartment buildings that are supposedly 'greener'. This is questionable, as people still need cars for work, travel etc. Also everybody living in one still needs water. We, collectively are in a crisis, the old ways no longer work, and the new, sustainable ways, take courage, innovation, and dedication to create. Suggested Reading, Charles Eisenstein, his website Charles Eisenstein | Author & Speaker Please read the second article on water on his home page. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 7:50 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Greg Stutheit <gstutheit@montalbaarchitects.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 15, 2018 7:37 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Holman, Karen; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Wolbach, Cory Cc:Chris Wade; Ivo Keller; David D. Montalba; Gutierrez, Samuel; Council, City Subject:620 Emerson/ARB Application No. 17PLN00331 Dear Councilmembers and Madam Mayor, Montalba Architects represents the Applicant for the new Nobu Restaurant project located at 620 Emerson Street. The project approval by the ARB was appealed and is on the upcoming August 20th City Council Agenda. The project team would be happy to offer a site visit prior to the hearing for any Council members that may be interested. We are also available to answer any questions you might have with regard to the design and approval process for the project, either by phone or email. Finally, I am attaching a letter written by the project’s attorneys addressing the details of the appeal. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and we look forward to presenting the project to you next week. Sincerely, Greg -- Greg Stutheit, Architect Associate Principal gstutheit@montalbaarchitects.com MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 7:50 AM 2 Los Angeles Office 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg T4 Santa Monica CA 90404 USA T (310) 828-1100 (ext 107) www.montalbaarchitects.com Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 9:35 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 9:28 AM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; plmachado@gmail.com Subject:Appeal of New Building at 620 Emerson Attachments:parking.pdf Dear City Council Members, Tonight the Council Agenda includes the Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Decision to Approve the Architectural Review Application for 620 Emerson Street to Allow Demolition of an Existing Single Story Building and Construction of a new two-story 4,063 Square Foot Commercial Building for the Expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Appellant Yo LLC's appeal is based on the elimination of 3 existing on-site parking spaces which can easily be kept by expanding the length of the parking spaces by 3 feet inward into the new building. There are 2,124 similarly situated spaces in the University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District that could be similarly eliminated and converted into indoor commercial space, much to the benefit of the owner and much to the detriment of the public. This sets a dangerous precedent for the elimination of much needed parking spaces throughout the downtown. And it could potentially result in lawsuits against the City by the owner denied such parking elimination. Payment of in lieu parking is hardly a solution when the City lacks both the space and funds required to build 5 or more public parking structures to accommodate 2,124 parking spaces. I encourage you to contact the residents of Palo Alto, in particular the group Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning for their input on this matter. Please read attached for background information. Thank you for your time on this matter. Sincerely, Elizabeth Wong, Manager Yo LLC To: City of Palo Alto City Council Subject: Appeal of Planning Staff Approval of Demolition and Construction at 620 Emerson St. Appellant: Yo LLC Date: May 31, 2018 Let's start with a few simple facts. Until Stanford Florists closed, the back of this property at 620 Emerson was actively used for parking and loading for the flower shop. The Applicant's approved design eliminates all three on-site parking spaces. This Appeal objects to the elimination of the parking spaces based on the following: POTENTIAL DISAPPEARANCE OF 21124 PARKING SPACES On-site parking is sorely needed in the downtown core. Elimination of on-site parking pushes the parking problem to the City. The city's parking assessment document {University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District -attached as Exhibit A) shows on page 5 that the property is given credit for three on- site parking spaces and paid in-lieu for the remaining eleven spaces it didn't provide. The architects' drawings for this property show as existing conditions that there are three on- site parking spaces. The Applicant's plans for new construction removes all on-site parking. Now I ask you, why would the City even consider allowing this on-site parking to be removed? This sets a dangerous precedent as there were by my count 2,124 on-site parking spaces listed in the report {page 6 of Exhibit A), many with similar 90-degree parking configurations with access from a 20-foot wide alley {see Exhibit B), that can also be removed from similar sites if on-site parking at 620 Emerson is allowed to disappear. Purportedly, the reason to allow removal is because the current configuration for the existing parking spaces is 20 feet long and does not meet the new standards requiring 23 to 25 feet. This can be easily accommodated by increasing the length inwards towards the interior of the site. Further, any space lost by the expansion of the parking could easily be accommodated on the second floor of the Applicant's design. DO WE NEED TO LOSE All THREE SPACES? If it is necessary to accommodate access for utilities and/or trash removal, it might necessitate losing one of the parking spaces; but to remove all three parking spaces is overreaching. The Applicant should be required to preserve as much on-site parking as possible, even only one in the extreme case. OTHER ON-SITE OPTIONS The Applicant has not addressed other viable options such as putting parking underground, which can easily be accommodated with a ramp from the alley. Another option is to use a mechanical lift to double the parking of any space, thus increasing the parking density of downtown. In summary, we are appealing Planning's approval for this project because it runs counter to the City and its residents' best interests. The elimination of on-site parking goes against the City's long-time vision to keep the downtown a viable commercial core with easy access for residents and visitors. Return this project to Staff until the on-site parking issue is properly addressed. Respectfully submitted, Yo LLC ....: (f) z 0 (f) ~ w ~ 'b w D CJ ...... ('\J \£) l ,. lo (\) D ...... t, ~ 'b (\) FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT for UNIVERSITY A VENUE AREA OFF-- STREET PARKING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Prepared for! City of Palo Alto . California Prepared by: -. .. Harris & Associates March,2001 City of Palo Al\o Unlvo11lly Avenue Ofl·Slrel!t Parn1no Assos•menl Dlslrlcl Assess.tnent Q:l'lll Asi:e$Mnenl As.s1"'11'1 NUmll<t Pnrcol I 120.0.1«l02 2 120-03-<!23 3 120.0l·024 • 120<QJ.OZ5 5 120.03-028 G 110.03-027 7 120.03·028 e 120-03-030 0 12°'03•031 tn 170-0'-032 ti 12 13 14 t5 IQ 17 10 IV ~o 21 u 2l 24 25 20 27 28 20 30 31 3i 33 31 35 JO 37 30 39 40 41 42 '3 u 4S 18 ,, •• 40 Go 120.03-033 1io.o;1.035 120.03·D3B 120-0l·037 120-03-o!2 120.0.1·063 120.0l·OIM l:W.Ol·CU 120.0U!IO 120.03-087 120.1)3.00D 120-03·010 12o.03·01t 120.03.072 120-03·004 120.03·oa5 120-fl·OIJB 12a.ll.(191 !ZO-ll·0!12 120.ll·otS Uo.tl-IOt 120.ll-102 120-11·110 110.U·lll 120-15-002 120.15-003 120.1$.004 120-l&·OOS 120.tS.OOG 120-15-007 120.t&·OIO 120.IS.Otl t20.IU·Ol2 120-15-013 120.1$-014 12o.l&.Ql5 l#O.IS-018 llt>lll.011 1211-1&·018 120-!0·019 Ovmel's Nnme Peters, COlln P.todu!us •rrves1rrient Co. ModU1us 11rm1men1 cc. ACQllGl.1.C ctit. Rooor.r.t c. Tru1le• Sedo!rneyer. Challos L. and Oarbaro s. L~ett.OOllllitA Palo Allo lrn91U•1<1monl Ca. Grondl. Jomos A. Tru!leo JTC JLSA1M>d.1IO$ll TP Unlvor<lly Avp. A"ocs. LLC FOfbOI, rhomal A, RUQll•, G"'rv• I.I. ""'Sniti.1r.> M. Truslte Fl'IP'Ml'ff·ArMICllll'n Tn.tst Hamtllon Wob1to1 JT V9" Et Al Johnson. Lund M. Trusla• Et Al Levell, Dl!Ml$A 505 H:tmillon AvMUt Pa1tn11rt Dot Srcc:o, Caf\:lt and Cl.:1)11:1h R. 'Trusten c M Copll•I Carpmollon (soe nolo t) CM Capilol Co'l'Orallon · Jotinw,..Hlrnst P.,.,,.rsh!p, !I Al (su nol• 21 CIODS 1897 Finl P'1llno11111lp, LP City of Pata Atta •WofJ.strr.CoWpar Oruago} aUn: Joa Sar:do Monts A•1<1cltl•• v ·Fresno Lond Onfr City al Polo Allo CL\110,,.WOVerly Loi) •Un: Jo& Siit:da J:it:M1S01 ~IO A. and Pasquafl'l\ll A. 505 Harnntc:in Avanuo Pons, LP City ol Polo Alto (Ll'll•.,.W••~r l.ol) '"'"Joo Socdo KcUey, n•tlwd A. Jr. Mal<UIY Prvpody lnvs. LLC. KcUoy, Rlcl1ont R. Jr, 21 Al C.mpboH Assoclllloo 11, A PTSP Gror. Lyle TMICO g £1 Al Ha!OS•U. H•"'f II. ond Sod#io M. TMI•• 401 Flonll!C•A• .. olOIOSLTO Oe!thgor, Domlhol e. TtU£1" Etv Pa:rnll" Partnttrahlp, LP Surge, Rldllltd G. Trust•• Fkll A111orlt1n Tiiie Go•ronly Co. n .. ~. "'"'· Inc. <J•• """'~I Tl-ollsUto.s. lrte. l.IPO Aawcl•le:J LLC Tl>ol110m1.lnc. Thell• Oros. In<. (ooo nolo 4) ,RRC A Llrnllod Ll•blllly Co. Kulvmln, enubClh A. tnatco & fHAl Swain, Morlh• I'. TMloa & ei Al Gueio,Mvma Hole I: omlle jlatklng pn;•ldtid 1"1 APN 120.03-010 I• trodlled !Oiilb AP!! Nole 2! -· Pilll<l"ll prvvkfad •• APll 120.0).111211 crodillld IC this APll lloro 3: oru11• porlllng P'"'''°" on /\I'll 120.15-012 i. crodllod lo tl'lsAPN Holts 4: nnsHo p111tdng piu..,lded 011 APN t20 •010.01.C Is crodllod lo lhfs llPN MaiDll'J Addms tlumbat Slloet 550 Lytto•Av 3m Fir. 21~ e:. Pnt1ur'1 ways Sto 1ao 2725 E. Po~o)"• Wavs Slo 120 525 llnlvon;lly Av. Unit 1500 42' toucst. G8IJ 1'13¥0~01 St. P.o.o .. i20 P,O.SoxZI 530,UolYO>sllf AY. 54~ Unh,Ortlty Av. S!o. f05 170 Stnrllsh CL ISllO Ttlnuon Slo. A SI. P.O. So• 1021 25520 Adobe Ln. 571 Hamlllonilv. SSS flomlllon Av. tJnll SI 100 141111 Oolphlc Wy, soa wavullciy SI. zso un1v1111llyAv. sie. :ioe 7 SallyLMO Proltmlnnry Coal EsUmal• Clly Palo Aho SDllLailoClly Sllll l•k&CUy PllloAHo PiltoAllo PlalaAllo r:i,,10Alla PoloAllo PoloAllo PA~Allo Final $45,fl()l, 133 eo.t E&llmala Sil• SlalO IZIP AddtOU CA 114301·tS42 550L)tkm UT 11<100 507 Unlvonl!y UT 8410SJ SSS Untversttv CA IM~OI 435 Ta110 CA o.t30t0i645 ds riis.0 CA o.t301"254D ftTT°'so CA 91301 415T4SIO CA 0002"00'21 500 Unlvllltlly CA 04301·1V01 aao Unlvorany CA !J.1301·1012 540Unl•e"'1v MOii"" CA 03033-2245 545 Unl,."'1y So!Yftll!to CA Polo Alto CA Lo& Allo1 Hlls CA Pa.'oA114 CA Pala Alto CA Pocolollo IC PDloAllD PoloAllo AlttMon Cl\ CA CA 01020 550 Unlverstty 9(302.1021 5114 Unl•ar>lly 9402HSSO 588 thllver<try 04301•2035 SM tlam111on o.t301 555 Hommon 113201 S37H;mll!on 114301 5i!lltinlllM 94301 505 K•mlnon 0·1027°5401 $43COIYPOI 525 Unl•olllly AY. Unll ISllO Polo Alla Cl\ CA CA Cl\ CA ,CA CA CA CA C4 01301-11123 525 Unlvcrs•ly IU30MOZ3 525 Unlvtr>lly IM02Mll02 530 Li!lon D402Mll02 m Lytton US Unlv111llyAV. Unll 15ll0 Polo Alto 4 Main 6t Unll 20 I i.IJj Ah0$ • Mnl1181. 1Jnl12DI 1.ooAhol 1$0 HtmVIM Avenua .flh E=IOot Polo ""o 172 Unlvorslly '"'· Polo Alto 2SO Htmilton Ave.nuo 41h Floor P1!0 Alto 2203 ChrmyAv. SonJoso 105 Albl!flo Wy. Sto. G Loo Dollli 2!0 H•mlllon Aveni.10 ,.lh Floor Palo Alto 112 Unl•lllJifr Av 05 T~tl<I SI, IJnil SI. 3DO 17i Unlvenlly AY 2055 om .... , Pl. Uni~· S&O 1Q05 u ... nor. 3970 """' "" 401 Ploroneo SI 344 Miildlo Field Rd. 2101 Biyonl GI 1 Kolsor PMto Sle 1450 405IK1p11ngs1. P.0.0oJ:21 P.O.Sm<21 1001 lamm•r s1e 300 P.O. Bo• 21 P.0.Bo• 21 tnlOnlotol'Stty Av 170 ROU111gwaod or. 177~ Volpo111lso AY 24915 la I.om~ Cl. PafoAl!o PoloAllo PaloAllu S11nJoaa MonloP•rfl Polo Alla P•loMo PoloAllo Po!oAlta OnktMCI CA CA CA CA C4 CA Cl\ CA CA CA Polo Alla CA Polo~ua CA Palo ARD CA lledM>od Clly CA PoloAllO CA PolcAllO CA PoloA!lo CA San Aotoel CA Monloporll CA Lon AllOS Hl111 CA IM30t 1"3015ll~r 04301 ~125-4712 1en111un 05032 35 I Lytlott 114301 OUOI 305Lytlon 04301 325 Lytlon 94301 33681\'•nl 0~110 379L)tlon 114rn5 314 L)1ton bl30l·.S38 330 l)11on IM3GI· 111l0 401 Flcranr:o ll4301·13H 3QO L111on 0001·3907 31111 Lytton IJ.l612·31lOI 401 W3¥u~ey 114301.f$30 405 lllpllflll 114302 fBOL11ron 04302 412L)11"" IMOGl 420 Co"l'OI !J.1302 444 Cowper 0002 480 Unlver<!ly 04101 4V9 Unlvt11lly OlOOl· 1453 483 UnlvenUy IMOZHOllO 451 Unlvtnlly Ol022·1584 413.Klollnn $<5,M8,IJ90 Squ:uo Parlilno Pal1dng 1\,0, Pa•kl"IJ f,ool;ivu Reoukod Prv•ldod P"1ldootlon 4.MS ID 10 O' 0,021 27 22 5 10,5'2 42 2 ,. 35,119 HO 30 110 0 il 0 0 1.180 S 4 I 0 0 0 0 15,800 IM 0 IM 8,400 34 0 31 1c,o31 eo o oo 4,215 4.llSo 3,!ICXI o,ZGI l,Bf9 14.010 uo 3,112 32.515 9,355 201.210 0 so.no o' 0 10,083 0 oea 7.SIM 0 10,PQO o,5eo 0.110 30,CIOC 01:90 0,075 s.m SOD l,lOll 4,050 3,134 5.052 0 f0,05t 0 10,301 o,ta 2.005 5,050; 2.81& 17 20 0 37 o' CB ID il 130 37 805 0 200 0 Q 1511 0 ' 30 0 44 30 3U 120 33 20 21 2 ' l6 13 24 0 10 0 12 37 12 zc 0 O' 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 4St 0 OD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 49 0 es 0 0 0 ' 0 10 0 20 0 0 0 u 2 0 • 0 IT 20 0 31 Q 51 18 01 130 37 353 0 102 o' 0 ea: 0 ~ 30 0 31 ·II 36 35 33 26 21 ! 4 0 13 4 0 10 0 ~D 35 12 20, 0 P•'"'V Pll!ilmlnal}' Finni Bencnt A.P&.s5mont At1ff1Hm~nt 0 $0.00 $o.ll0 5 $25.0llS.05 $25,085.05 ~· $200,!120.4.0 $2DO,S20.40 110 $551,431.1 t $5S1,431. tt G • $0.00 I SS.OIMI ss.013.Q1 o to.oo s0,00 GI '320,1132.lll $320,032.114 34 $170,4'2.34 $170,142.34 oo s100.1eo.eo noo.1110.so 17 20 0 :n 0 51 18 0 130 37 ses.221.11 $100,2ll0.20 .$0.0D! SIB5,<Bl.37 $0.00 $255.003.51 $1IO.~UB SO.OU $1151.101.ll Sts5.lftU1 $05,221.17 SI00,26UO io.oo $185,COl.31 10.00 $216,563.f;t $00,23!.18 S0.00 sos1.ao1,31 Sl85,481.37 353 $1,7811,5112.55 $1,789,592.&s 0 ~O.oo $0.00 102 SSll,321.02 $611,327.03 0 SO.OD $0.00' o $0.DO So.DO, 68 '310,81!1.88 $340,961.88 o SO.DO S0.00 • $20,052,01 120,052,04 30 5150,300.30 s 150,300,30 o SO.DO $0.00 37 0 35 35 33 20 21 t • 0 13 ~ 0 70 0 20 35 12 20 0 1105,IUI .37 so.co s1ti0.•ouil $175,4$5.35 $105,4~9,33 Sll0.36Uo $105,273.21 S5.0l3.0t $20,052-04 S30.0ID.OO St\5,169.13 $20,052.0I S0.00 $399,027.70 so.co SI00.2e-0.1!0i JUS,455.!IS 5G0,1Do.12 s 100.200.20 •MO $10S,4S1.37 SCUlO SlllO,•l)j.30 S 1?5,CSS.35 s 105,420.33 $140,304.28 s 105,273.21 $5,013.0I l20,b52-114 $30,078.0G $115,189.13 $20,052-04 so.oo $300,027.70 S0.00 $100,200.20 1!75,455.35 $00,1$0.12 SI00,200.20 so.oo " I As~eis1ncn1 Aneuors OHT1efr. Mallin; AddtCH Siie Sqtrt'l'O Pn,,..1na Parking A.O. Parkin' Plllt<lng Ptollmlnlll)' Fln:sl Hmnbfr P;11n;if ~l;imo llUnlb• t Street cnv Sl:tlo ZIP Add'rcn Foologc n"1Uk<'d Provided P1Mdo~11on Benon1 l\'3CJ.ssmant AucsS:mont Numb<t Unit$ 51 121l-IS·OZO Thlllls Bros. Inc. ?.O.So•21 Polo Mio CA 0~302·002 1 ·131 Klpfl"IJ 1,lt~ ' 2 2 2 S10,02B.D2 $10,0Z0.02 52 120.1s.021 TI1Qtts eroo. Inc. PO.Box2t Polo Allo CA DJJ02·00ZI 431 Ktfl!ina 2.729 0 0 0 0 $0.00 to.oo Sl 121>-15·022 Ol'Mtz. DocolhY L !I Al "" Do !ltlbln nd. Bll~muot1 C4 IMOI 0 4l3Klpll11Q :us&2 1; e 0 0 S)Q,078.00 $30,010 00 ~I 1.21>1$·0.1':1 Tl1olU Bros. lno. 02 U Ett111tt0nSf Palo ~no C4 !M300 ~11 Kllllino 1.53J n 0 e a U0.078.t» $30,0IG.Oo ·""~~ ..... l.!Wk!W-~~flllll)~~1,,. •. ,,,.;,_,,..,, • ..., ... ~--·~ , __ .... .Q>,...,~·~·-~llllAQI·~ (I.;!, •• .1-o~14'fa m. . -~ ---,.1 ~ll:ll l-6 llo.IS.020 Wnr<;i. J•ll!1' Truit .. A El Al P.O.l'Jtn:'O• Polo/,tlo Ct, Q.l;;o ? •Z9 Unfvf.rtUv r.w• 2P a 21 21 st0.!121~2,! ~ios.m.z1. f-··.,;7-•'ll11'""°2tl"" CJlllll~-~~tf.lll!111¢r.rl!lltH'&1:TAr···~·'"----·-----~3'or--·-~ "\'I'"~~ ""IX"' -ll45~ m'lliMiilW' -'"'"ti·· It 2 re 16 SIW.21l8.18 .iiil.209.1U 58 lW·1S OlO Sleare. aorblra F. 10141 indlon Hnl Dt, \Yelld CA GOOOl•04115 423Unlv01$1IV uea 9 1 B e Sla.1°'4.08 S4D,10.f.08 50 120. IS•Oll ~e1rondo,, Donald rrus1011 I Et Al 224 l\n1anRd ManlaPDlk CA !M025 415U.,,,.,.lly 5,078 23 D 17 tr sos.:zn.11 $05,:Z.Zl.ll DO 120.15·0.12 Shonll!r, Elaine M. Trusteo 1320 country Club Or. lolAllGG CA 04024-5302 4D5Un!Ya"'1y &,5$0 22 1 21 21 $ 105.213.21 s 105.213.21 E :] 01 121"15-0U Mlthaola Ffawer Stv:lp 453 wov.-0\' SL PoloAlta CA 04301•17.ID 453W .. cdey oso 3 a 3 3 St0.039.0l SIS.03'.Dl 62 120.16-1)34 Haley. l<•lhloon e;, Truoloo & El Al 170 P.ol!'>OV'>ood Dr. Sanllo!nd CA 041lOH•53 '30W3v"1l•Y 7,2611 20 0 2~ 20 $145.377.20 $145,317.20 OJ 120.15-0;?D ChltdrHlh Jlthn 9. Et AJ. POiio• eso P•IDA!lo CA 91302 ~UWll'lcrioy t.m 0 0 0 0 $0.00 to.oo ~ 120.ts.o:ir Clllldto£o. l<illhryn A. El Al PO tlo< OSB PeioA!ta CA 9~02 ODWove~oy mo 0 0 0 0 so.oo 1000 es l~MS-Ol.O Fram, Allcv G. Tlll>lae A El Al 4155 S.W. South Shore BL Lake Ot"°'n OR 91033 122Wave~ey 3,G90 10 0 10 18 SBQ.208.18 SB0.209.rn BG iio.IS-030 Holl•nd. J\tlhUr L. and Jone M. 10'7 RamDnD St. Pa!OAllG CA 04301·2444 dBWmedoy 3.218 0 0 0 0 so.no 10.00 DI 120-15·040 John Chlld1011 Assodotes i>oeoxese PsloAllo CA 04302 OllWovadey 2,845 tt II 0 0 so.oo to.Oii OD 120.15·041. Chlldresi. l<olhrynA. El Al POiio> 1159 PaloAllO CA 04303 303 Unlvo111lly 3,82$ 15 0 15 IS $rS,11!5.15 $75.1&5.15 GQ l20.1S.04?. AIJl'p, ltoty H, And J.tlcholfo R. Tni"ll!e P.O.Do• 1072 PaloAllD CA 0430M072 379Untvltl1lly 3,0QO 16 0 te 16 Sllo.200.IO $00,20ll.IO 70 l:0.15.ol3 11•1'11. Roxy II. Tn~Co & El Al P.O. Dax 1672 PaloAllo CA 114302·1012 :115Uolvtmnv e.m 33 0 33 33 $UIM2UJ SlllS.429.31 71 120-IS.044 S,,.,y, Can>llno I'. TMIOO ~Cl-nlPI. MenlOPO!k CA llt025•3'14 3DIUlll,1tt1Uy uoo 10 3 1 1 $35,0!11.01 435.CGl.OI 72 1211-15.045 Mosonlo Tompto Ass•. P.o.eox 1000 PllGAftc CA SJ4302·teeci 3ssun1 .... 11r 33.$30 ,,. 0 131 l:M 5071,743.35 $071,743.~ 73 120.15-IMO Molonit b;my f'1ropc.r11co, L.P. <31 FIOICl>OO SI. SI• 220 PolOAho CA Q.430"17\lil 431 Flmn:o 5,783 Z3 0 17 11 SBS.m.n sns.m.11 74 i20.1s.040 D•""'"· Oolo H ..... Haney s. Et Al 250 Unlvo1$llY AV SI• 200 P11DA110 CA 04301 .C20f:'l(mJl1CO 0,7'0 35 0 35 35 1175,415.35 Sl1G,Clli.3~ 75 12MS.OSO Glovannollu, Sal••loro on:f Slello Tni•I P.O.Boxll0117 Pnlll Alla CA .nma 33V Unlvo11lly 10.llOO 43 0 43 43 $215,SSP.43 $215,559.43 70 120-15·051 MelnnlD Diltl"' Propc-rUos. LP. 431 FIOID/11:8 SI. Sin 220 PaloAlln CA 9001·1700 32.JUtt!vMSHy B,,20 25 0 25 25 $12!1,325.2!1 $125.325.25 71 t20.1s.osi. Melanie Barry Pro°'rUes, L.P. 431 Flotenea SI. Sto 220 Polt!Atto CA IM30M70!l 317 Untvmlty s.2:so 21 0 21 21 5105,211.21 $1CS,i73.21 78 "1).11).053 We?11 Faruo U:ink Corporalo Ptapr.rtkt Croup attn: Jen And'm 03l Fclsam Strtol, Uth Flo:it !•"'""''""' CA 114101 301 Unt;onilly 20,01G 110 20 OB . 9ll 5401.248.~ $401,24P.07 79 120.IS·OSI Sho0tor, Elalno M. EIAI P .o. ea. 34187 Hov"on TX n:l.34-.4'81 301 Untvanlty 0 a a 0 a $0.00 so.oo 00 120..t5·055 We!I& FalQa Dank CGmot.'lfa PrapMlcs GmitP attn: Jett l\odar 833 FolsomSltoo1.6lhfloor Banfroncl'oo CA n4101 301 Unlvcrslly 0 0 0 0 a so.co lo.co er 1io.•s.ost 300 Unl11oralti' Asr.cdates 172 Unlvor>JlyAv PafDAllD CA ~130M031 310U1dvorsl1y ZD.$3U 118 I 111 117 $980,522.18 $5Btl,522.10 82 120.15·058 Crrms1on, Alon Tn1&loo & et Al P.O. Do• 120 fl .. oARo CA 9~301 318 Unlversur 18,342 05 3 02 82 5310,008.62 ll ID,809.82 83 120-l&·OGn llonno, M•rinnno L. lllld Pulflh.1m LY11nl. El Al 122 Hnm111on Av PalCJAno C/\ 1'4301 330UnlvMlly 0,1® 33 3 30 30 G1$0,300.30 5150,300.:tO U4 120.15-060 Wa"C1. Jaime :a.nd Elb:nbolh H. Tn11tuo P.O.l'Jo•ZO• PolOA!lo CA S4302•Q2111 340 Unlver£11Y 10,030 01 0 07 01 S335,07 l.87 $335,071.07 85 120.IS·OBZ Slonkovlc, triodo Truolet A Et Al 620 91\'fnlSlrott PolllAllO CA U43D1'17t5 370Unlva11llr 3.850 15 0 IS 15 $70.105.16 $7',105.15 RB 12o.IS.Otl!I Ropp, ROJY H. """Wdlel'.t) R. Tnllle• l'.O. 11<1x 1072 PeloAOo CA 0430M07'2 374 Unlvor.olly 2.n37 12 0 12 12 SS0.150.12 $60.158.12 01 120.15·004 Toyn. Yoshlinl!OU lln1 TOkako TMt•• 320 erll!QeRd HIUsboroU!Jh CA Q.IDIO.OOlt 38?Utllve1'/ly 3,57~ u 0 II 14 $70.1112.14 no.m.11 eo l:!fl.15-085 Levol~ cennls A El Al P.O.Box 1072 Palo Allo CA "'1302·1612 3114 Unlvorslly 14,250 57 0 51 sr sw5,m.57 S285.l4f.57 eo 12o.15·00G sion.:o Pmporiliia Carp 2 CMcPIW!Unll IDD llov.l>Oll Bt•dl CA 92600.51127. •DO Unirnslty 10,855 GI 28 39 ae $185,507.39 S!OU01.3D DD 12o.IS-001 kDngM'°ctlllnoJrn:. 115$ Atma SI. P .. ol\llo CA 11-13Dt 420 Unl>01tlti ID,•U 74 • 70 10 saso.01o:ro $350,910.70 01 121).15·000 ~~ogy. CJ1nrlcc. E. ttnd Matth;1 TtU~IOt' :IOO lD cuoslo Or. Lo1Allor. CA 0402•4748 4$2 Unl11e1slly O.OOH ~2 0 32 ~2 SI00.410.32 S ICll.4 ID.32 92 121).15·009 P•lo Allo t healm Ccrpor.1\!011 700 Emoncn St. ro1oi1110 CA 11-13Dl·z.tl0 45l!Unl,1111lly :Z.Z.450 lltl Q VO !Kl $451.170-llO $451,170.DI 93 120-15-070 BOllY. Fr•nk R. Jr. Trull .. 431 Flo"""'° 91. Slo 220 P1laAl!O CA 94301"1700 400llnlvOISlly 7,1114 31 0 31 31 $155,403.31 5155.403.31 ~l 120.15-071 UlllVl<>llf p,.>l<lanl Allsocs. UC lllal!HillCI. SaoFron<Uco CA 11-1108 180l/nl;amly t5,0tt2 OJ 0 03 OJ !315.819.83 UtS.010.03 05 1»15·072 C:OV.'Per Squ-n Pmtntt1 t.'D Web~cr FltWt:lnl 425 Wnvtrlers11..r PaloAllo CA Q.4301·1923 520C•i.pcr 07,1114 2lil !14 205 m $1,027,GeT.oe $1,1>:!7,GOl.lltl oe 120.15-013 CHy ol Palo AllO (C<>Wpe1·H:unlllon Lall Oline Mr. Joo S•cc!• :zso Hammon 4th floor Palo Alto CA 1>131)1 a 0 0 0 0 SD.OD to.no 97 m.1s-oi4 LOtMolnc, 172 W. Unlvo!iRy Av. Palo Ano CA ~4301-1831 Ml C<r•ll1!' O,elO v 0 21 27 $136,351.27 S1:J5,351.V ~s 120-15.ars O:w.-p11t·H.1mlUon A£SDc:falU :m llanlORlli>AV Polo Alto CA 0•3Dl•3942 49aHom111on 1$,768 03 0 83 63 SllS.810.83 $315,819.BJ 09 120.IS.076 Halez1, elldmlinmon R. and 1.1ai1oro 1530 Leed•A• CupMlno Cl\ 9&014·5219 401 H:unlllan e.12a 33 0 33 33 s 105,429.33 $1115.42G.33 lllll 121).15.077 Glov1mnotla, Sol-volo10 on;f SleJhi Tmfit P.O. Do• 00177 Polo Alto CA 94300 4GOHnmlllon 1•.000 so 0 60 GO S2D5,1C17.S9 $295,707 .5~ 101 130·15-078 Dalol)la>, Donnld It and t.IOl)i!llon k. lrusl 23ll0 TOHO SI. PataAl!o CA 04301 43SHoinltton uoa 21 0 21 21 $105,273.21 SIOS.273.21 102 130.16·079 All Snlnto Epl...,p>I Church P.O.Bo<322 J')l)!DAflo Cl• 94301·0312 555 l'lo•M&y 22.4'0 0 0 0 0 so.oo SOl,10 103 120.15-(!BO SIMCO Pn>Mtlles Coll! 2 Cfylc Pio."' Uni! I BO "°"'"°~ D"'ch CA 92&$0-5022 S3S 1/11111c"cr 0 0 0 0 0 ~o.co Sll.0.1 UM 120.IS.Oot s1w--Prot>t:~rlfr.' Cora 2Chll<Pl11.10Un11180 U•-JtSo:Jeh CA 01eao.so22 s1swa.vc:rta11 0 0 0 . 0 a •o.oo SO.QI? t.teta s: orrtlla p:i11it110 prcwl~tdan A-P~J t20.t5.o55 ls czedllcd to lhb tile ~ A1&essrn1m1 ftHl!ISO(S owners Malling Add rm Silo SQu;ua Po~ rori<t"'l AO, Parnlng Parl<lng Ptcllmln:uy nnal Uurnbor Parcel Nnine Numbt? rSfmt1 City Slol Q' :Zip AddrrJh r:oot.;)Qe RcquttO<l PIO\'ll'ftd J>.;rl!ic!p;iUon Bt'nant Ms'C~~me~ A1.t~sin~nl N11mbe' Unlls 105 1ao.1s.01r1 Dcrucn, DOie H. """ llaJICY K P.0 DO> 389 P.11'!!At:.(r CA 04302·0)10 SIOW:1vorll!'y 2.852 11 4 1 1 --·~ ·-~ 10fl 121).15·oaJ Haff>clo!r, Edw;lnl D. 111 El Al !1&8$ l'loodsld• Ad. Woodr.ldn CA 01002-3lM3 520Wovcrtey B,75Z 35 f 34 34 s uo.44a.34 Stl0,44n4 101 120.15·084 Edcls.telri, Ctmrtao R, and S;irn J, Tnu.1oa-m e VallcJOSl.Unll4 Sanf1011t1sco CA lll12J.411G11 5eiOWnv~rti:y 1,050 32 I 31 31 1155.403.31 i1ss,4au1 100 120.15·085 Jalmo Wong and P.ll1:aboth Hnn Shu Wong TMlflCS roo .. 20. POIOAllo CA 11'!02 !UK> Yln••>rfo)' II.GOO .a 0 •• •• $230.S99.40 $230,508.40 "'" 120-15-0H c11y of Palo Allo {Hnrnuton.Wa'iarlr Lot) attn: Jot? S:aa:IO 250 H'i1trtUtOf'I Avenue .Clh Floo I Poiol\ilo CA 91301 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 110 l:Z0.15-0W Fell. Tom R. TtUSIOO I El Al 1311 s SlMcwlP t1uclto1> CA DB!BI 31SH•mlll0n 0.07P 30 0 3Q 30 Slll0,468.30 $180,llUB Ill 120.15-0!ll H11nsan, P.o1ul J, int1lae 103 5 UenRooAv lctl\llCI CA IM024;0241 '41 e1y.1n1 B,740 35 0 3& :I& Sl75.45S.3S $115,45$.!5 112 1:0:15-004 Promltt Pmpan101 rlo Mr. Jim Saar 112 Un1Yut$111• Avonuo PalaAllc CA 04301 $20lllyanl 45,600 182 0 ·102 182 $912,307,~ $012.307,G:I 113 1izQ.ti!-<l!Je City QI PQIO Alie (FIOICOCIJ.Litlon Loi) Dlln: Joe Saccfo 250 HamlllanAvenue •th F!Oor Pl!laAllo CA IM3DI 0 0 0 0 0 so.oo S0.00 111 121).IS.100 City or Palo Alla lllilon-Klptlng lcl) tlllo: Jo• Sor.do 250 HamlllonAvonue41hFlcct Pa!oAllo CA !M!OI 0 u 0 0 0 $1).C)Q suo U5 1%0.15-101 Wu.Row•naS. Sli CthA·1 61111Frunr:l1w CA 04116-3714 431W•venoy 10,UiO 44 I 40 •o H00,52D.40 $100.S20.10 110 l:lo.15·102 P~dflc B,.I Aaotl Elt;lo Oflica 2000 C1:1mlna R:.morJRm 3E:ID2 sanRMian CA 04531 1•0 Hnmlllon 101,8110 408 0 402 402 U,015,230.0l $2,015.230.IM 117 l:lo.111-103 Si,.,..UVIC, Al .. Ollllnr •nd FrlOdO Trusleo 528 Brynn! SI Po!ol\ilc CA 0•30l•l70l 300UnfYerilly 31,0IS 136 D 135 us $B7D,75UB IB7U.?G8.00 110 1~,Q.IS.11» cllr ol P•la AllO !Drr•m·FloroncO/llrranl·lyilon Loi) DIUi: Joa S•cct• 250 t·h1n1mon A.v1111uo 4th ~loar PoloAllo CA 9<301 0,100 32 D 32 ,2 $tll0,41B.l2 St00.41B.l2 110 120-15-1°' GlovOMDflo, hl;"11110 anrJ Sloll• Tru~ l'.O.llox60177 P;ioAllo CA 1143DIJ l,\ll$ 0 0 0 0 so.co so.co 120 120-IS.IOll Glovonoolto, Sol•nlcru w Stello Trutl P.O.Do•OOl77 P.,toft~o CA '114300 $35l!ryoM 2,580 10 0 to I! $50, 130.10 sso.1:io.10 1~1 l:lo.lfl.002 Polo Alto Pell OIRCC 3SO Hnmlltcn Avenuo PoloAllo CA 04302 3BOHamtUon IU31 40 ta 20 28 St40,3114.2U $140,3114.28 122 120-111-021 lovoll, Denn~ A. P.O.Sod2D PnloAlio CA 04302 1120 Wovcrtey 3,000 0 D a 0 so.oo $0.00 123 120-111-022 Rlld<or. Douolu W. imd !la•no• L TN'1 .. 640 t.fonb AY $10 to MonloP~lfl CA 0402:S-ol?l2 ~aYl:iverfoy 1.37,. s • ·I 0 U.o<l S0,00 124 1ao.1e.023 Rudutt. Douglas V/, llnd f!ltollOr l. Trull""!••• rolo OJ 1140 Menlo Av Slo 10 MonloPn1k CA !J.10254712 114VWovtlloy 1;&20 1 8 1 0 S0,00 $000 125 120-lfl.024 Am a nee tor ccmmunat Catt1 00 ti. Whilo Rd. San Jo~ CA osm ($UW1Wtlloy 4,761 D 0 0 a $05,241.24 so.oO 120 120.10.029 City ol Palo Alla (Ollma,,.w;wedylcn 11110: Jo1soccto 250 HllllllllcnAvenuo 4111 Noor Po!oAllo CA 1M301 D 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0.DO m 1:io.10.1i32 lloenan, Cha~o& J, Ill Trvslco g e1 Al 100 emo1110n st. PaloAllD CA OC30t•2410 054 Ollmon 1,575 0 t G 5 $2$,005.05 525.D!IS D5 i~u 120.,10.0!~ lovell. tlnlllll> A. P.O. Dor 4ZO PllicAllO CA 04302 a.cs·Farim 3,005 Ill 0 16 IG $80,IOll.10 SB0.20i!.1C 1211 120.lfl.034 First Chlln:h ol Clulsl Sdaolb1 of P•lo Mc 801 SryanlSI PoloAUo CA 1!4301·2502 O!Ullryonl 11.121 0 0 0 0 !Q,00 sooo 130 1ZO.lfl.OI~ trvfnu, Perry A. W ltomla}'•lrvlne Undn 635 SiyDnl SI PaloAllo CA 114301·2502 035Siyonl 4,0l8 10 I IB 18 SDO,Ul.18 SD0.234.10 131 120-J0.03& Hnmllfon Alttodl'rlas 300 700 em•n:on SI. PllloAlio CA 04301·2410 027 Dl)'llnl 0 0 0 0 D $0.DO SO.OU 132 120.10-005 CHv ol P•lo AllO IGllmon.eiy•nl loo 1111n: Joo Sacdo 250 Hnmllfon Avcmua 4tll floar PllloAllo CA 1).1301 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 so.co 133 120-1(1.(198 li•mlllon A!IOClolos 300 100 &me11.on SI. Pllioi\llo CA 0430f·i!:•IO 300H•mlllcn 41,509 11111 51 IOll IOi S54U18.IO 1~40.4 IB. ID 134 12'1-25-071 Knop/, Kormll M. tru"•• & El Al ICCl)5 K"""' SOlll>(l! CA 115310.0411 !Ollomon> 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $0,00 135 1;!().2&·aff Kidder. W. Jatll el Al 3105 SloolRd Petibl11 Pooch CA 01053 l!1L1t1an 9,?'1? 23 D 23 23 s 115.2119.23 $115.:191123 136 120.u..too Uohl...,loln Prupe~l•• lP 5001 C:futlll<t Av. Un!I 07!i em~ryYll/IJ CA 041JOB 131Litlon 3,671 1G s 10 10 $50.130. 10 $5o,130.IO ta! 120.25·110 Jack Dyn>Drd AU• .. 450 Fl111Dt. LosAllll~ CA 0~022·3600 la7Ly11Dn 4,0SQ ID 0 10 18 $05.:141.19 595.247.19 138 120-25-111 Ferr:1ndo. Oon:d<f ond Oline e. Trusl•o 224 •td4nnd Munlo Pail< CA QI025 IOIL)llOn 2.282 a I~ ·0 0 :o.oo $0.00 130 120.25-118 Wehlter Dlh'rJapn,t.nts Inc El Al U465 """'"l.n Sonora CA 05310.11471 ~IJOBrron< •.240 11 0 11 17 Sll!.1.21.11 $115.121.17 ten 120.25·110 Wob1let Sotmo ASIOcl•I•• 250 Unlvo..i~· Av Slo 200 PllloAllo CA IM30I 205 Ly11on ID.117 75 17 50 SD l2D0,7S.Ui0 $200,754.GB 141 120.-25-13~ ~os ll•mlilon """"""' PorttJollhlp, l.P. 405 Alba1lo \.\'y. Sto 5 Loso,.., CA 05032 1B1Lynon IP,738 70 20 83 53 S205,0DM3 $2115,GaU.53 142 120.2S.150 fhO<IOQ J RlthartJ 8 llortqo l«lly Tru 114 AIJoJondro Athirlon CA 11402,-4107 312Rllmon• l,C51 0 2 0 0 SMO 10.00 10 1Z0.2S.ISI 111 .. 1noJ. Rl<ha'11 i ll•ncyKo!ly '"' 114 Mtl#ndra All1'11DO CA 04027·4107 31 RomonoSI 0 0 0 0 0 so.cc so.cc 144 120.25-152 2•5 l\llon Ava P•n lP 10M &OSI Moodow Cl, P•io.\Jlo CA Ol301·4220 24SL)tlon S'-OIXI 220 150 10 10 £350,0to.70 $35o.&t0,70 149 120.2(1.002 Drmn. Joano11a hi, P,0, Bo•40l MDynord M~ 01151o()t04 ~02 High 20.050 0 0 0 0 so.DD SO.OD ICO 120.20.003 Ol~son, G. 01cw Jr, Truslce A ~I Al so s. Morltel SL Unll #1120 S•n.lo&n CA 99113 ~01 Hlah 4,:Jl)O IT 0 IT 17 sos.221.11 sos,221.11 141 120.20.005 Cllr ol P•lo All• 1em01son·Lytlon LOI) •1111! Jo• Sncclq 251 HamlUanAvenueollh Floor PnloAllo CA 1M3DI 0 0 0 0 0 $000 $0,00 148 120.20.cm camerico Bank .c.tnlomia oun: L1dto A, Esplnlo" 75 E, TrlmlM Rood l.IC4100 SilnJo•• CA 1)'301·1'21 250L1flon 28.31M lt3 511 51 51 $2115,141.Sl 528.5,741.57 140 120.2So«lll Kl"IJCI, Don>ld II. Trustee g El AJ ~'I! k•en:tn Llllld Co, 100 Emetton Sttt!ct Polo Mo CA 04!01 281 Unl.•r$11V 15.000 l!O 0 t\O oo 1300,IB?,00 $300.18080 150 12fl.2(\.0® TMll• srvs. Inc. P.O. Po• 21 PaloAllo CA 04302 211Ut1hlei•llr 3,HO 13 0 13 1$ SOS,160.13 Sll!;IOQ,13 151 120.211-010 Amol, Edward P, Tnr&lr.a aos tlowdllld. PoloAllll CA !J.130).2640 :01Urrlv~lly 10,780 43 0 43 43 1215.559.43 1215.550.(3 152 120.20.013 Eng. Joel! L. El Al 420 n11monas1. PaloAllo CA 04301·1107 OBRaOlllnn 4,408 !8 0 10 19 $00.234.10 sll0.234.18 153 120.20-01• Sl"'1fonl Thtt:lh."r tout!d~lort Ut Unhrfl~lf' Ave. Pa1oA.llo CA n•30M112 221Vnlvr"11y 10,ll<lll 7$ 0 75 75 5315.915.15 5315.075.75 15; IZ0.20.015 Fl11non;i Auod~h.•1 ll$O l~rntl\FlrttSt. S1mJoso CA ll:lll2'5109 UORamona 3.076 15 0 15 15 S!S,t~.15 $75,195.15 155 12(1.21.\oOIO ltario Dorney •ml Yeung 50 C<lllO Lnr o WDOd11<10 CA IMC62•2418 450Rnrnono 2,IM6 8 0 a a $40,tOtDB $40,1(14,0S 158 121J.2fl.017 Hallacl<. nc11 Tiu1100 & El Al 37115 SumAllioRd. Srtb.,lopol CA O:S'471·04G9 n.onomono 2,212 0 0 0 e $45.117.09 145,117.00 157 120.211-0ID Miiii. Fr.> Irk H. •nd SIUrlar A Trosl•• 548 ~oilJAllo Polo Ano Col IW301·1220 23!Unlvo,.lly 0.101 30 0 3D 38 $lll0,40UB $1G0,401,30 , ___ m 1»20.010 Rud<lf Douala• VI. Olld Eleanor L Truueo IUO lk-'-Av Sia 10 MtnklPl'Jrk CA Gl02~m 1•21 Unl•rin.ll\I 4508 1a 0 ID .. •00.231.10 ~_,iu !Iola Gi lln<ll• p~lifn<:i ,,...vld.a coAPll 120·0l&.02.21!.ciedlttd lo lilts APll }:; Auossmlt'AI A:ut1sr.orn °"'1o~S Moiling Addtt?'l Siio !iqu;1ro P.1riJt'{f Pcrl1l:-.a A.O. P;rl<lnp Pmr.lro Pteilmlnaiy Fina! IA1111IW Pittcof H•~ llumb" 811001 City ~1me ZI:> ~dd .. Jt fOOlt:Je R£."Qllltl'd PEO\'i;f!M P•rltlclj):>Uon Bonan1 Auanm~nt A'"cumtnt I-lumbar UC111S 150 120,211-020 Polll:o Coff09e al S••Ulf ol rmno 1Dl!5 No-LP Ptcsa:m AZ 88303 200 un1.011nr 17,085 AB 0 •n 48 1240.824.48 mo.02ue 180 110-211-021 Critlen<Jon, HoY;ard B. fll Trustee 117 HODlhorOt. Alhorlon CA 94027·2110 201 UnlvoraUy 7,?41 29 0 20 20 SUS.37'.29 $14!.377.29 181 UC\.26-Cl:.?Z 01:J1vJt,Jame• A. Md Undo 500 Co111erOr PoloAUo CA 94301·3101 143EmtlSOn 5,426 22 0 lU 2l $110.211ll2l SltUIM2 !Ill? IZ!l-20.023 Pahc Aparuneni. Inc. m ~lm•St Palo Mo C\ IM301·2fQJ 431Ema"°" IMoO 12 0 42 • 42 11210.510.42 mo.sio.42 103 t2MD·02S li.i st.tU. Co'iot'"" c1.;i,,, R. TAJtloO T llfllyL.,.. AllM!tum CA &<021.slOI ooemt,son 2,i;oa 12 0 12 12 seo.m.12 $60,1511.12 104 120-211-oze Alto P•IO Tlieo~o Co.'llOlllioA 700&..,.,.nSl PltlaAllO CA 94301·2410 noemeMn 0,025 24 0 24 24 $12fU1ll.21 $120,312.1' 105 120.21>(1?7 Clly ol Polo Alla (Enoo,...,;Hlph lol) ottn: Joe S.,,.. 2JD H~on A'fcnue 'th t·loet Pn!oAllO CA \11301 0 0 0 0 0 so.co SD.OD t6G 120.211-021 Sunthf~ fnveslment Company 2332 s.c.wt Palo Alla CA 04301-1235 !85 Unlvc11Ry 8.050 27 0 27 27 $13U91.27 Sl35,35UI 107 120-20.020 Hortacl<er. aemlnlld J. Jt El Al m Unl'!iillYA• Palo Alla CA D430t.1033 111 urn. ... ny 7,401 30 0 30 30 SUUl>0.30 $190,311"'30 108 1211·~.fl.030 E1narsm1 Unrv~l$it)' lnvo,lmcntt LP UlS UnlwMllY"Av PotoAllo CA 04:J~t·tD:S$ iO' Unlvo11tty 11,W.S 30 0 ~o 30 SI00,400.38 SIOD.4011.~0 1811 IZt\-20.031 m Unlvonlly A., LlC 151 U,,i.atsllyAv PtiJo-Afto Cl\ IM30lol03: m un1 .. 11111 17,590 70 0 70 to nso.e10.10 $3$0.010.70 110 12\f.20.032 Jeh:wlh'4 Wlll'IDl!llW Palo Allo N Cong 0 210~ PlllOotsAv PDIDAllo C/I ouo:i:zozo 429HIGh 4.230 0 0 0 0 So.DO SO.OD 111 120-20.033 Athono Bnlltpr!SIU llC 655 Ofl/8111 St1aol Unll 811 pnlOAllo Cl\ 04031 425Hil!h 13,110 52 0 52 52 $200.070.52 S:lll0,07852 172 120.211-03• Fo•nndo. Donald and Olano E. Tn1&lea 20725 Volley Gmon Or. Slo 200 CllP'llllno CA 05014·1703 rn HIOh 4,905 20 4 10 1G $80,208.10 ID0.208.10 113 120.20.031 Koch, PhllilS V. TNllco 20010 PoloHQltOr, Lo5 AllOS Hiits CA MOU 135 Unhlu111ly 0,007 35 0 35 3& 5171,450.35 1175,455,35 174 120.20.030 OM Twenty Fl•• UnlvMllY LTD P411nor 125 Unlva11ny Av P:JloAllo CA 04301-1030 12U Untva11lly 10,137 41 0 41 " $205.533.4 I 5205.533.41 175 12"'20.030 SaoarPortnota 2105 Gmenwn)'lODflvo Woodlldo Cl\ l>llm 117 Unl••fllly a,sao 3' 0 3• 34 $110.tf"42.'34 $170,442.34 110 120.:lilo042 Tenn)Un, Rabett H. rru,u:u~ t. e1 Al ::100 A\IOUSI Ct. M11ntoP::11k CA o.t0l5-SD:O 110 Unlvatslly 2,800 to 0 10 10 $50,130.10 $50,130.10 177 120.20.0.13 Mtlauohlln, Holbetl 222 VollO)o SI. SanF11ncls"' CA U41tl•1622 124 Ulllvcrslly t4.G8S OD 0 00 DO UOD.160.00 S3D0,780.DO 170 1:zti.21J.044 High SllOOI PmJo .. 700 E""'ISOflSt. Pn~ Alla CA t>.1301·2410 13DUnl•a111ty 13,325 n 0 93 $3 S?llS,D00.33 $285.GBU3 170 1211-:m.04s n10na Bios. tne. P.O.DoHI P11l0Allo Cl\ IM302 IWUnlv011lly 24,033 00 0 f)g 00 $400.201.011 1411!1.287.90 110 12fl.21S.C"10 Huynh TU Ho and VI Hue Lo 2QB7 c,_ILn. sn11Jor.a CA 05123-111:18 100\Jnlvo,.lly 21100 ff 0 II 11 $55.143.11 m.m.11 181 120.20.011 H413ml·Fan!N;gtf1Tnutee g El.al 170 UnlvorsllyAv PaloAl!o CA wo1-1e31 l70Unl••lllly O,Z!IO 25 a 25 2!l Sl25.32~25 1125,325.25 182 1211-20.Q.IO eu, J1111111 ~ and Oraca L 1937 AT1dlyRd S;11Jo11t c~ 05122 112 Urll•o111lly 7,11!0 32 0 32 32 ueo.<10.n $160.&18 32 183 ·~l).2Q.OS. Toyo, Yo&hlmlt•u •nd Tal<el<o 0. Tnlll,. 320 Brld9eRood HllltboOOUl)h CA 04Dtfl.U912 mUnlve1tHr 10,000 40 0 40 40 5200.520.40 $i00,520.40 181 120.2fl.055 Toyo. Yolll~mluu ond Ta~••• D, TMI .. 320 Bridge Rood Hnltbcn>ut1h CA 1)4010.1)\)la 2lO!Jnlvol'llty 1.m lO 0 00 30 &150.1ll030 $1$0.3ll0.30 tllS 12o.21l-051 POlricl.J;mul.I. 39 Chllries Hiii Ct. Orin~• CA 0.1503-IQOI 270Unlyer;ily 10,000 40 0 40 40 Uoo.62040 mo.szo.•o 18£1 12<'20-080 N>vy, CMrioa E. ond Martha TMloo 300 LJiCutsl.aOr, LosAP.0$ CA 0402"4748 aro Unlvo"'IY IB,!100 72 0 72 ri U&M3D.72 t:1eo.D3a.72 107 120.20.001 Stantuwl<:. WH~am El Al 520 Dl)'ant SI. PMIAl1o CA 1).130f.1T03 S2211t:YMI 13.505 $4 Q 6' 64 $270.101.S.f S27G.702.54 11111 120-211-002 Chllstlanun. Jan rt A. TMtet & Et Al P.O. Cox 2397 WolnUICr•ek CA IM!0!;.03~1 113081'.)'lllll 5,032 23 3 20 20 St00.260.ZD $100.260.20 1811 120.20.003 TllollsSm•. lrn:. P.o.e .. 21 Palo Alto CA 01301 S•O Diy;rtC 0,107 3G 0 JD 38 ~lllQ,18,3(, Sl80,40B.38 100 120.20.QIJ.t ThoksOros. Inc. l'.0.9a•2t Palo Ano CA 94302 0002 47,700 191 22 100 100 ~IM7,1PB.70 $1M7.lll9.lO 2Jl5 Homlllon IOI 12P.~fl.~ Alhouso-HarNtlon 2800 El Camino Reol Ste 100 Palo Allo CA 1).1308-1705 201 !Jomlltan 37,0l)(l t5t 7 l~I U4 sm,013.•s $721,873.45 191 120.20.000 Alhous .. l!Omlllan 2000 El e11111too neot Sia too Pa'OAllo CA IJ.1300.1705 641 flamono 9,4!!0 u 0 22 22 $110,?DB.22 Jl10,2BD.2.2 193 120.20.087 Pe Lemcs!t Pm,,.J11i!! 2381 S111to Anb SI. Palo Alto CA 114303 5:15 Romon• 9.010 38 0 00 38 $tOC),iCC-t36 $110.404.30 !DI 1211-20.000 Do Lomo• Proportl .. 2301 santc An• SI. PoloAllo CA 04303 520 Romomi G,205 25 0 25 25 S1lS,32!U!i $125,325.25 195 120-211-070 Ramon.530 PO. Box2328 Kntchum to 83340.2328 530 Romono 0,104 33 0 \13 33 Sl!IS,12U3 $t05,42U3 1119 120.20.071 Ho1'.io, Jonnie c, TMtoo & El Al 200 Ly•ll 91. LosAUos CA 0402NGIO G3t!R~na 4,010 20 2 10 IO $110,U4.10 $00.234.18 107 120.20-012 Oukos. Daocn E. '"" Ano•lin M. Trust .. 1150 N.~lhSI Sao Jose CJ\ 95112 53Plla1110•D 4,m 20 z IQ 18 $00,234.IA 100.m.te toa 120-21Mf73 D•hl, OJomo 0. Tru•••• & elAI 1095 Vallar F•lll• or. Sunn)'Yolo CA 04061·2012 $40 Aomon:. 30,301 . 145 0 us 14' suo,aon.4o $7:?0.800,40 !Ill) 120.2$.074 Stht!r. Mcivor and Honnoh l!I Al 40IJ Bolllh Moll did• M Unll 2 II SUllf1Y\'OtO CA 040811-7050 20tHamlllcm 20,040 101 2 Ill! 105 $520,300 Oli $520,306.011 200 120.i!S.075 SutllV.n, llonold I TMICO & El Al 07Zl f earmantTr. Svnnyvolo CA o.toeo S.CSUmtn.an 4,010 20 0 no 20 SIOIJ.200.20 s100.2ouo 20t 120.20.070 Clly of Polo Alto !Emor1of1.R"'"ono LotJ olln: Joo Saa:lo 250 H1mHton Av~nuo 4tti Floor Polo Alto CA 01301 0 0 0 0 0 ID.oo SD.DO 202 120.20.070 Mldl;al·Polrltk Inc. 632 emv.,..$1. PalOAUo CA 04301"1007 530Emrr.on 5,750 23 0 23 23 S11MDll.23 $115.299.23 201 120.20.oav Sha111er. cr1·do et Al 1320 C<!u~ Club Dr. Lo1Alloo C4 IM024·53tr.? 531f:ma"'°" 3,000 12 0 12 12 SOO.ISB.t2 $60. 150.12 21).1 120.20.oat Boll, Vatori• D. 27W Moody Rd. 1.osAll°' CA O-t022.f210 &30f.imanon 4,00<! 10 t 15 15 176,lll!l.IS $75.1115.15 205 121'20.0112 lmlAosl•:m 202 GaltuboroUQhCI Fo1'1:1m CA osa:io.1011 SlOEnmrson 3.529 IC 2 12 12 $00,150.12 SllO,IS0.12 200 120.20.0113 lolJtlQ, Ver.i Tntlloo & Et Al 21130 JtoHOt'. P•l•Allo Cl\ 04303-3032 S44Em"""n 6,315 2.1 0 l!2 22 $110,~B0.22 $110.28&.22 101 f2!1-2fl.aa.I Botlenoourl, Roba~ T. TIUSIOO 4 El Al P.O. tlo• 419 PoloAllo CA !Mlll2·0410 SBGr:marson r,•S2 30 e ~2 22 s110,wn.:' Stt0.20D 22 100 12fl.28-U'!5 Homlllon A1sac1a1 .. · 10S4 lho A11m..io Sta 200 S.nJoso CA 95120.2200 t0111.amlltan 15,0IM DO ii llll eo noo,reo.BI) $300,700.60 209 1211-20.ona Tsor M•111•tCI Ula E•tal• 1805 PMoloRd, Wood•ldo CA U.!092·20)8 57~1\ljJll 23.Sf5 04 12 62 02 SHl,OOll llt $411.D".6112 .....J!!L-120.W•(\BI Cit• of P•lo Alla "''"l•Hamltlon loll •ttil. Jon Sm:do 250 tb1nl1ton Avcnuo 4th Fklot Polo Alto CA 11-1301 0 0 0 D 0 sn.on S0.00 l/ . AIJ5C.SS"10UI Assas~r'.s OV.nar's Mnlltng Addrt!il $Ito S.1u:t1I! f'11r1'.lflj_J P:'lt\;I~ A.O. Par1<"1g Pnri<lno Prrllmln"'l' Fl11:rl Number rtnr:~ Hnme llumbcl SUDOi Clly $1;1• Zip Attdross Fr.ic1:"r.Je R"lu!rt<I Ptovltt~ Pilrllld .. 11Qn aen~fi1 A~tt.tment A.ssnSSPUtnl ,_ !li3::!:asn Un: ts 211 Cltr of Pnlo Alla IHlol>Alm• So!bl U>\J lllln: Joo Satdo 2!i0 Jbmltton Aven11C' .iu1 Fl:>a f P:r:l:iiAllO CA 114301 D I 0 0 0 SD.DO $0.00 212 120.2a.oae VolYJ!Cf'Y'OOrt,Jill IOO!I Erlg~M>Oddr, PalaAHa CA ll430HB21 S<.2H~h 0,315 20 0 20 28 1130,339.20 Sl3D,33D.28 ~f3 120.26-000 Mill!, Joon F. El Al BB! l.omn Volll•A• Palo Mo CA 0430J.41t6 l35H•mlllon 0 0 0 a 0 SO.OD $0.00 214 120.2fl.091 f!ns:ml, Stcvnn I. Tru-.tee & El Al 887 LDm11 VurrJt> A'J Palo Alla CA ll4JOJ..tll0 63\lAlrna 8!250 25 0 11 17 S&S.22t.17 5115.221.17 215 120.20.092 r.f!l1m""· Cfl~(!S J Ill Trusl~U 700 Emr.rron Av Pa!QAIJa CA 0<301·241 o 5201.lro~ s,m 23 0 2l 23 1115.2&~.23 $115.290,23 218 121).~093 V4rt~cr:cort, Jill TNsleo IOOS Etj0"'1IO¢dr. PaloAllo CA 0'3G"8:1 I $2&Almo l,$02 31 0 31 31 5155,103.31 $15$,403.31 217 i20.20c0H Otllomo. vidor c Dll!J M~l!lat•I M. 753 E SI Ciiinlna A"i Sunrlyv111e i:A i><ise o 102Udv•..ity U,105 $1 0 51 57 $2115,NU7 s2es.m.s1 21e ti?0..20·09!1 CUy •I Palo Alie 250 flomnton I\••••• PafDAllO CA ouo:i 450 eiyanl 19,218 73 20 44 u $22D,572.4' s220.m.u 219 120.20,001 505 H311111tonAvo Pn1ts LP 3338 E31nr!SI. 8IOP217 Tut111 OK 74139 t80Urllvmlly 30.750 147 0 IH m mu12.48 $130,DU.46 220 130.211-00S lv0t10n, Nome J. o"' Miiian c. Tru11oe 8!0 SnndHIHCt. I.lento Part CA \J.102S.7109 220Unl>rnl'Y 7,3llO 30 0 lO 30 $150.31\0.30 $150,3;Q 30 221 121).21).099 c11y OI Polo A110 a~n: Joe Satcio 250 Hn:mll!Gn Av12ntlo 41h Ffo01 Pl\toAllo CA IM301 0 • D 0 0 !l0.00 SO.Oil 222 120.28-100 25 t UnlvMllt A ... cnuo Auodmv1 259 Unlvo1nuy Av Silo. 200 PnloAUo CA 04301 ZS1 l/f11Vo111tr 17,D35 71 0 71 11 $35U22.71 $355,923.71 223 120.:fl.101 PloU•I EqufllftllUll Corp P,0. 90140< Mti~nntd MA 017~·0llM 130~)1fOn 47,234 18~ 111 71 !I . $355,923.71 5355,023.71 224 12C.:2o.102 fOI Ur!IY~rs«r 555 c.1ttlarrno SI. Sle. 28SO San Fr;/\c:fsco CA 0411M 101 Uolvetllly 41,320 IDS 30 120 128 S031.B3t.27 $1131.BlD.27 225 121).28-103 ~$0 UrWer:!IV AvtnUG A.sotfatcti :isv Ufll'rmrtnv Av 510. 2Dtl Polo Mo CA DllDI UDl!r"'1eisll)' 41.SOO 10! OB 100 1GQ $$01,301.00 UOl,301,01 220 IZ0-'20..104 Cltyof PaloAllo 250 Hnmlllon Av""'"' P~laAllo CA 04303 250Unlv ...... 0 0 0 a 0 $0.00 SD.Oil 227 12M0.105 G.UOMGl~t1Jr. 1711 Te<:hnology Pr Sullo l~O SanJottt CA 05110 41)(1 EmUtscn 0,110 32 3% 0 0 so.oo $0.00 228 120.20-100 Emetsan Assatf:ilC!?I 20725 Volloy G~n Or. Stu 200 CUptl~lno CA 05014..1703 .tit~ Emenon MOO II a 0 e $40,104.00 $4U,I04.08 229 120.21·002 Zachorlolr lne. 20!7 2lll1Av San Ftancl,;o CA 04132-1535 110 Homnton 7.404 30 e 2.2 22 1110,28D.2l! Ulo.21111.22 230 12o.27°003 Znc:h12rlahtnc.. 2911 21lh51. son Fnnellco CA 0411iµ1~8 13ftHomlnon 3.345 13 z It ti sss.m.11 sss.m.11 231 120.27.oo.l Sibbler. Jome' o. nn4 llnda J. 158 Harnlllon Av PaloAllo CA 04301-1018 l50florn1nan 1,875 8 I 1 7 135,0!)1.07 135,091.07 232 t2M7·005 Blhbh!!', Jam" O. ond Llnda J. 15Q Hollllllon AY PAia ARo CA 0430MOl8 15DHol!llllOn 3,750 15 2 13 13 105,100.13 $05, 169. 13 233 121).2f·OOll Liwumca s. Kuod1la' so llortl1 Flml e~oot SnnJOIO Cl\ 95113 185 H•mlllan 13.004 52 4 ~a 49 $24D,82MO mo.024.46 23• 12D·2f·OOf CDlo,Otga tBO HMn~IOA PnloAllo CA (11304 100H;amHlon ~0.11#7 ioo 5 195 195 101!,531,llO $9!1.53a.80 235 121).17·008 Thlllls Oros. Inc. P.0 Da•31 P1loAl1a CA O<l02 200,.,l!nlllon 16,150 01 0 OI 61 130;1.70!.0I l30S.793.0I 2!8 121).27·000 Gnllov Pnt~ortlos LtC 1!!1151 School HOll>O Ad. Band OR mo1.2321 2!U Hamilton 0,450 20 0 ID 2B 5120,338.:ZO Sl3D,31UB 231 12"21·010 Fonul Ca~:i RMI llC P.O. Soi BD177 Pi!iloAllo CA 1!43DIJ :Z:-4SHamltlon 5,000 20 0 20 20 1100.200.20 $100.260.20 238 IZMMlll CllV ol P;lloAllc (Civic CenlQl) ndn: Joo Soc:r,lo 210 Hamtlt(trl AVOOUI!' 4th r:roo, Polo Aho CA 04303 2SDHomlllon 10,000 200 142 139 138 SCOl,!119.39 $001,195.39 230 12°'27·012 RO<lal, Darts J. TruSloO A El Al 3398 Trum~n A.v. Moll!llnlnVl~H CA Q.4040 Ol&Romono e.1os 33 0 '3 31 $105.4%9.33 llr.5.429.33 240 120.27·013 Bnrnos Sheil• M. 158B ¢3•1111•1• Av PoloAllO CA llA30').1040 830Rnman:i a.DOZ 20 2 ?4 24 S120~J1.:?.24 5120,312.24 241 12t'27..014 dJ& RnmonA Ass.~tfatirt.s 355 SnniaRllohY P•lrlAno CA 91301·3942 0301Wn••• ~.740 ID 2 11 11 Sl!S.221,17 $85.221.17 2•2 120.27·015 T.ahlr, Rovll and Onfinu 3510 t.owoll>d<Av Oolmool Cf, ll4002·13Jm IM2R•mona 3,!MO 12 4 u B $40,UJ.l.08 S<0.104,00 243 12lf.3!·01U Palo Alto Alf Club, ft1u BOD 11nmonoS1 PotoAllD CA 1Mllllo254G se8Rnm0M 1,S73 30 1 10 20 1115.:171.20 '145.377.20 244 120.37·017 Hol:mon. e.H. TMlea S El Al IOI Shbll Rd Watt.MVllJO CA 0~070-006/i n1Fora.st 8.415 " 3 31 31 Sl!t!S,AOJ.'ll $155,403.3 I Z45 120.27-018 C:m11n:1I Ch?:i:nGm Inc. 203 Fom,tAv Pn!o.Alro CA ql3D1·2511 20H.,..I 3.30ll 13 1 . 13 12 SG0.150.12 soo.1e.12 240 12t'2T-010 T~r:ng. At~cndcr Ji., ~ Mtuthtl t.. Trus:lca 870 NllWOD Rd, Pllfo.Allo CA 04303·211A1 e51 Emirson 2,480 10 0 tn 10 $10,130.10 550,130.ID 241 12o.27'020 M01woll, Don31cf A. 111ld lbOrH:i 1.t Et Al P,O. Dow t20 PaloAllu CA 01302·0120 043 El!llllCOn 5,Sro 2l 0 22 2.l ltl0,200.:Z2 ltt0,28o.22 240 m1on.021 Ml)lctior Corporalloo 035 Etnan:onSI. PtllDAllO CA IM301·1610 03SEmoB<>n 0 I) 0 ·8 0 $0.00 SO.OD 2•D 120.~r-022 Molcl>or Corpor•llon 039 EmonsanSl PaloAllo CA 0430"1010 035Eml!l"..on 2,400 ID 2 9 0 10.00 $40.l!M.DB 250 121).27·023 Tholl• Sros. Inc. P.0.D,.31 P•laMll CA 04302 82Sf.ma1wn B.020 27 0 21 21 $135,351.27 "35.351.tl' 2.St 12!'27·02• ThaiitsS~s.lnc. PP. B"'ll P;rta Alla CA 04302 OtDEmorr.on 0,076 27 0 ~I 21 1105.273.21 s. f05,213.2t 2S2 131).21·025 l(ofllg-Uollur., RLrlh E!. ISi Al 1147 PnrnoAv SunnyvalfJ CA 04001·2234 020 f,Jf1Dt$0R 3,000 14 3 It II $"..S,1•3,11 $55,143.11 253 "0.27·026' Pnla Mio Tha:ttro Carporollan 100 !1nemanSt. Polo Alla CA 0430!.2410 024 Em11t<0n 11.405 5ll 0 50 5& Utlll,754.~B $200.751.58 2S4 120.27·027 Aldlngor. Luror A. lMler! & El Al 74 o.itrnaPr. Mi:nr,,.a1tt VleN CA 94041.2322 041Em•"411 o.:iiro ~3 2 31 ~I 1155:•0~.31 $155.403.31 2S$ 121).27·03-I ll10ma1, Sh•rman L TMlte & El Al 30ll01 LDl'CI V•Rer Rd. Tthnchapl CA D~l·B589 0351lJvlr 4,SCO 20 0 15 15 S75,1D5.16 $75,105.15 2!\11 12<'-21·039 Plo1c-:0. srcvo rird ct11clyn L 2DD C:O"llOrSI, Pola Alto CA 04301·1200 021HJvlt 740 3 I 2 2 $10,020.02 $l0,Qa,C2 257 IZ0.21·030 8(:rnslcln, Martin D. Oil High SI, Pola/Ilk> CA D430M020 01!HlaJI 1.'l91 0 0 0 0 $0.00 so.co 2~B 120.27·0~7 Znduulnh Inc. 2917 24ilr 91, San Fu1ndsm CA Omi-1535 622~ 0 0 0 0 0 so.oo $0,00 259 120-27.(\)0 Z•tho~•h Inc. (>oo "°lo 71 2017 2•11151. Omfmncf.sco CA 114132-1539 6S4 ll!Vh 17.104 00 37 32 32 Slllll.410.32 $1/lll,410 32 2GO IZ0.27·03V U.S. TnJllComponyoleo .• 'ITEE 51! S. F!oWOt SL Suiltt 27C<I LHAhcre!i» CA 00071.21120 e<!Olllgh 8,250 20 0 25 25 $125,375.25 $125.:125.25 < 201 12u.-.z:r·P42. u G, TruOI com pony or ca .. nee: 11ee noie Bl 515 s. FIOW11t SI. Sill• 2700 Los Angel" CA 00071°2420 OB3Almo IO,&a2 44 21 13 23 5115.209.2~ $1115.2£19.23 202 120.27"!43 U.S. TNll Compo•y Of Co., 't'l6E 515 s. r.IDl'IOr SI. Sulla 2700 Lit• Angolo• CA ll0071·2420 CJ.11/\lm• 0 0 0 0 0 so.DO 10.00 203 120-27·084 Sml4f, Samuel nniJ M;:ufano J, lmslaa e&S fllp~SI. P11J0Allo CA l).!301·1625 UOFcre!lt 4,802 10 0 19 19 505.241.19 $05,2'7.IO 204 121).27·007 IRo•blor:ull LLC Et Al 8736 w. Ro\\~and Av. UIUnlan co 801~0 IOOHamhran 72CMO 260 129 150 150 •71!70GS,l!O &797 069.00 1.1-1-'I.---"--~.1.1--__.. • .!.t-.1 --"'l"t.t.I 4 .. 1\."l.,..l'\"!l.'f 1111 -.uh1 ... ,41,..1i.1., llCH Nola S: onslle por~lno p1ovldod en APll 120·27·04210 cradilod on lhl& AP~I ~ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 1:48 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 12:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: KPIX5 To clarify, KPIX5 contacted me (not the other way around) and was interested in the APPEAL of the Nobu Expansion. Elizabeth On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> wrote: For your information KPIX5 may be at the council hearing tonight reporting on the Nobu Expansion. Elizabeth City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:01 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 3:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:620 Emerson Greetings City Council Members, So I have been apprised of the complaint that Elizabeth Wong has with the under parked design for 620 Emerson St. to expand the Nobu Restaurant. I don't think we should approve any more under parked structures, period. However, it seems there is some lack of integrity here, as Ms. Wong's building is under parked as well. Since she wants a PASZ opinion, I can only speak for myself, but we are FOR all buildings being fully parked. Suzanne Keehn PASZ Steering Committee 4076 Orme St. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:01 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Greg Stutheit <gstutheit@montalbaarchitects.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 3:17 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Fine, Adrian; Wolbach, Cory; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom Cc:Chris Wade; Council, City; David D. Montalba; Ivo Keller; Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:Re: 620 Emerson/ARB Application No. 17PLN00331 Attachments:CRW Letter to Palo Alto City Council re Yo LLC Appeal (08-08-18) (00838307xA4507).pdf Hi All, It has come to my attention that the referenced letter was inadvertently omitted from the previous email. It is attached again here for your reference. My sincerest apologies. Best, Greg On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:37 PM Greg Stutheit <gstutheit@montalbaarchitects.com> wrote: Dear Councilmembers and Madam Mayor, Montalba Architects represents the Applicant for the new Nobu Restaurant project located at 620 Emerson Street. The project approval by the ARB was appealed and is on the upcoming August 20th City Council Agenda. The project team would be happy to offer a site visit prior to the hearing for any Council members that may be interested. We are also available to answer any questions you might have with regard to the design and approval process for the project, either by phone or email. Finally, I am attaching a letter written by the project’s attorneys addressing the details of the appeal. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and we look forward to presenting the project to you next week. Sincerely, Greg -- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:01 PM 2 Greg Stutheit, Architect Associate Principal gstutheit@montalbaarchitects.com MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC. Los Angeles Office 2525 Michigan Avenue, Bldg T4 Santa Monica CA 90404 USA T (310) 828-1100 (ext 107) www.montalbaarchitects.com Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn {3233-00002/00838264;} 575 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2700 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 TELEPHONE: 415.814.6400 FACSIMILE: 415.814.6401 business@ssllawfirm.com CHRISTINE R. WADE DIRECT TEL: 415.243.2088 chris@ssllawfirm.com August 8, 2018 VIA FEDEX AND EMAIL City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org RE: August 20, 2018 City Council Meeting Regarding Architectural Review Application No. 17PLN00331 -- Yo, LLC Appeal from Decision of Director of Planning & Community Development Approving Project at 620 Emerson Street Dear Councilmembers and Madam Mayor: We represent PA Hotel Holdings, LLC (“Applicant”), the owner of the property located at 620 Emerson Street in Palo Alto (the “Property”) and recipient of the project approval that is at issue in the above-referenced appeal. The Property contains a currently vacant, 4,000 square foot commercial building, formerly the site of the Stanford Florist flower shop. Applicant proposes to replace the building with a 4,063 square foot commercial space to allow for expansion of the existing Nobu Restaurant located within the Nobu Hotel—Epiphany Palo Alto next door (the “Project”). After carefully studying the Project over the course of two hearings, the Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) voted unanimously, 5 to 0, to approve the Project as currently designed and conditioned. This Appeal was filed by Yo, LLC. In addition to its role as appellant, Yo, LLC is involved in active litigation against Applicant related to Yo, LLC’s failed attempt to purchase the Property from its previous owner. Yo, LLC’s owner/representative is Elizabeth Wong, a local property owner and developer. The Notice of Appeal alleges that parking, traffic, loading, and restroom issues justify reversing the ARB’s decision. However, as discussed below, all of these arguments miss the mark. Each of these issues is addressed by the staff report and the record, which provide ample support to sustain the ARB’s unanimous approval of the Project. City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto August 8, 2018 Page 2 of 9 {3233-00002/00838264;} In-Lieu Parking Fees The Project’s reliance on in-lieu parking fees to satisfy the City’s parking requirements is consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the Municipal Code provisions governing in-lieu fees, and with the City’s planning documents for the Downtown area. The City has made a conscious choice to design its Downtown Commercial District as a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly zone, featuring a variety of small shops and restaurants housed in separate, architecturally-distinct structures. That preference is reflected in a number of General Plan policies that encourage the use of shared parking and reduction of parking requirements for restaurants.1 The City’s Downtown Urban Design Guidelines likewise emphasize the “existing building pattern of storefronts or structural bays,” which “create the human scale of Downtown”; and Municipal Code § 18.18.110 creates design criteria that “promote pedestrian walkability” by directing vehicle access away from store-fronts and reserving public street frontages for pedestrian access. These policies demonstrate the City’s commitment to funneling parking demand into the public garages disbursed throughout the area, rather than attempting to accommodate all parking demand generated by each redevelopment project on-site. Consistent with these policies, Municipal Code § 18.18.090(d) allows certain projects to satisfy the City’s parking requirements through payment of in-lieu fees.2 These provisions apply, among other things, where the project occupies less than 10,000 square feet in site area and it is not physically feasible to provide the required on-site parking due to an unusual lot configuration; or where the site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or otherwise prevents use of the site for on-site parking. The Project satisfies the requirements for eligibility to participate in the in-lieu parking program. First, the site area is 4,063 square feet, well below the 10,000 square foot threshold in subsection (d)(2), and Applicant has conclusively demonstrated that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required parking spaces on-site. Specifically, Applicant’s representatives commissioned an independent study of the feasibility of integrating on-site parking into the Project by expert traffic and parking consultants Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. The study evaluated 13 separate parking layout scenarios with respect to turning feasibility, physical site constraints, adjacent private property constraints, sight distance adequacy, and bicycle/pedestrian safety. Nelson/Nygaard determined that all 13 scenarios were infeasible for a variety of reasons, including inadequate visibility of pedestrians in the alley, insufficient turning radii, and other issues related to the Property’s unusual configuration, with its narrow rear frontage on a one-way alley that contains several other nearby obstructions. The study concluded that, “there was no feasible way to provide parking within or on the project site that could meet parking space size, ingress and egress movements, or vehicle/bicycle/pedestrian safety standards.” The Project therefore satisfies the in-lieu fee eligibility requirements of Section 18.18.090(d)(2). 1 Relevant General Plan policies are listed in Appendix A to this letter for the Council’s reference. 2 The complete text of Section 18.18.090(d) is set forth in Appendix B. City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto August 8, 2018 Page 3 of 9 {3233-00002/00838264;} Second, the site is located in an area where city policy strongly disfavors curb cuts, because they disrupt pedestrian circulation. As ARB member Wynne Furth observed during the first of the two ARB hearings, “I don’t think there’s anybody who would support … a curb cut on Emerson. That would go against everything we’re trying to accomplish here.” This restriction significantly constrains the Property’s ability to accommodate on-site parking, since it prevents any arrangement by which cars would enter and exit a garage from the Emerson Street side, thereby requiring all cars to enter and exit from the public alley in the rear of the Property. As the Nelson/Nygaard study concluded, the alley cannot serve as a safe entrance and exit for parking on the Property for all of the reasons discussed above. The Project therefore satisfies the eligibility requirements of subsection (d)(4), as well. The Notice of Appeal argues that the City should reject the Project because the Project will remove three existing on-site parking spaces. While it is true that there are currently three parking spaces on the Property, the spaces are too small for current City parking requirements, and there is no disabled access-compliant space. In fact, the garage is only large enough to accommodate two legal parking spaces under existing City standards. Moreover, in practice these spaces have been used as a loading zone and for storage of trash generated on the Property – not for parking. The ARB took all of these facts into account in reaching its decision approving the Project, and as ARB member Robert Gooyer stated, the Applicant provided “the most thorough explanation as to why we need to … get rid of those three parking spaces I think I have ever heard.” The Notice of Appeal next argues that the Project’s payment of in-lieu parking fees “is sugar-coating the fact that there is no provision for off site parking within walking distance.” That is simply untrue. There are five public parking lots within a two-block radius of the Property: • High/Alma North Garage (Q), 550 High Street • High/Hamilton Lot (P), 549 High Street • Emerson/Ramona Lot (N), 561 Emerson Street • Civic Center Garage (CC), 250 Hamilton Street • Ramona/University Garage (B), 533a Ramon Street We also understand that the City recently expanded its garage on Lytton Avenue, and is working on an expansion of another garage on Hamilton Avenue. Accordingly, there is a large amount of existing public parking located in the Project’s immediate vicinity, and the supply of public parking spaces continues to grow. Further, restaurant patrons will have access to valet parking at the entrance to the Epiphany Hotel, directly next door to the Project. As it does now, the valet service will continue to utilize licensed spaces in private garages or lots outside of the immediate vicinity of the Project, rather than taking up spaces in the closest public garages. City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto August 8, 2018 Page 4 of 9 {3233-00002/00838264;} It is possible that in referring to the lack of “provision for off site parking within walking distance,” Yo, LLC is arguing that the City must assign individual parking spaces in specific public garages to projects with in-lieu parking fee components, so that there are designated spots available for the project’s use. However, nothing in the text of the Municipal Code supports such a requirement, and it is our understanding that the City has never taken that approach to in- lieu parking. Yo, LLC has not provided an example of a project for which in lieu spaces were specifically designated, we were unable to locate such an example in our search of City records, and Planning Department staff knows of none. To the contrary, the City recently approved a project at 429 University Avenue, which we understand was sponsored by Yo, LLC’s principal, Ms. Wong. That project requires 87 parking spaces, 34 of which will be accommodated on-site. The project relies on past payments of in- lieu fees to provide 37 of the remaining spaces. Consistent with the Project at issue here, the approval documents do not mention any assignment of specific parking spaces. Likewise, the City recently approved a 7,158 square foot expansion of a senior citizen center at 450 Bryant Street, which is zoned the same as the Property and located just 3 blocks away. That project generated a need for 29 additional parking spaces, which it will satisfy entirely through payment of in-lieu fees and a transportation demand management plan. Again, the approval documents do not mention any assignment of specific parking spaces. Nor would such an approach make sense. A big part of the reason for accommodating parking demand in large, public garages is to allow flexibility in the use of parking spaces, so that spaces not being used for one business at any given moment are available to patrons of the other businesses in the area. Assigning specific spaces to individual businesses would defeat that purpose. Yo, LLC next argues that the Project proposal “never addressed other options such as mechanical lifts and underground parking….” That is incorrect. The 13 scenarios studied in the Nelson/Nygaard report specifically included underground parking and mechanical lift options. The expert consultant found these options to be infeasible for a variety of reasons, including the difficulties created by forcing cars to back out of an underground garage or lift into a one-way alley already occupied with other parking spaces and physical obstructions. Thus, while the Applicant has submitted substantial evidence showing that the Project is eligible for payment of in-lieu parking fees, Yo, LLC has failed to submit any evidence or credible argument to the contrary. Traffic & Congestion The next issue raised in the Appeal concerns the Project’s purported traffic impacts. Referring to the presence of other restaurants on the 600 block of Emerson Street, Yo, LLC argues that “Location of another restaurant may bring traffic and circulation on this block to a standstill, especially during the peak evening hours.” The Notice of Appeal again offers no evidence to support its claim. City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto August 8, 2018 Page 5 of 9 {3233-00002/00838264;} We understand that the City typically requires a locally focused traffic analysis for projects generating more than 50 trips per peak hour; and only requires a complete analysis to be performed for projects generating more than 100 new weekday peak hour trips.3 The Planning & Transportation Commission staff has concluded that projects generating less than 50 new peak hour trips, “would generate an insignificant amount of traffic relative to the local street network (i.e. they would not have the potential to result in direct, indirect, or ‘considerable’ contributions to cumulative impacts).” Here, the Project would replace an existing 4,000 square foot commercial use with a new 4,063 square foot commercial use. The Planning Department staff concluded that in light of the type of use, square footage, and location, the Project’s impact on traffic and circulation will be negligible. Yo, LLC has offered no facts or evidence to rebut that conclusion. Accordingly, the record does not support overturning the ARB’s decision on this basis. Loading Requirements Yo, LLC next argues that the Project’s elimination of the three on-site parking spaces “creates loading problems for this site” because the three spaces “also act as loading space.” Notably, this argument conflicts with Yo, LLC’s previous argument regarding parking, since spaces that are consistently used for parking could not be used for loading. However, in addition to this logical inconsistency, the Council should reject this argument for several other reasons. First, the Municipal Code unambiguously provides that the Project does not need to have a loading zone. Table 3 in Municipal Code § 18.52.040 sets forth the Minimum Off-Street Loading Requirements for various uses. The requirement for “Eating and Drinking Services” with 0 to 4,999 square feet of space, such as the Project, is zero. Second, the lack of a separate loading zone is consistent with the City’s existing policy of encouraging the use of alleys behind commercial properties as loading zones. Indeed, Ms. Wong benefited from the same policy when the City approved her 429 University Avenue project, despite the fact that the project included a loading zone that was too small to satisfy the City’s requirements. As noted in the Staff Report for the March 20, 2017 City Council meeting regarding the 429 University Avenue project, There is a loading zone at Kipling Street and the alley provides sufficient loading space for the project and service alleys throughout downtown have historically been used for the purpose of shared loading and access. Using the alley is consistent with prior projects reviewed by the City and with previous iterations of the project design, and meets the intent of the City’s Code requirement. 3 This understanding, and the quotation in the next sentence, come from a City Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report dated December 11, 2013, titled “Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Traffic Model Update.” City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto August 8, 2018 Page 6 of 9 {3233-00002/00838264;} There is no reason why the same logic should not apply to this Project, which will generate considerably less demand for loading and unloading than Ms. Wong’s four-story, mixed-use project at 429 University. Third, Yo, LLC’s argument ignores the fact that the Project has access to the existing loading zone for the adjacent hotel. The hotel’s loading and trash area is located off of Hamilton Avenue, and includes a 145 square foot indoor trash area, a 231 square foot indoor loading and elevator access area, and a 290 square foot outdoor loading space located outside of the public right of way. All of these areas are approximately 155 feet from the proposed connection between the hotel and the Project’s kitchen. While the Project has access to sufficient space for loading even without these facilities, and the City’s Municipal Code unequivocally does not require further loading space, the Project’s access to such extensive facilities for the foreseeable future is also worth noting in assessing this issue. The Notice of Appeal also argues that “Larger delivery trucks and vehicles that service the grease traps for example cannot make the two sharp turns in the alley.” Yo, LLC again offers no evidence or credible argument to support its assertion. According to the staff reports for the Project and Mr. Gutierrez’s testimony to the ARB, Planning Department staff specifically measured the width of the alley and concluded that the alley is wide enough to be used for service and delivery vehicles. Although parking on the Property is infeasible because the alley is a one-way street and has existing obstructions in the specific area where cars would have to back out from any parking spaces on the Property, those issues would not apply to service vehicles proceeding through the alley in the permitted direction. Further, there are already two other restaurants (Tacolicious and Dan Gordon’s) on the same side of the same block of Emerson Street, in front of the same alley. There is no evidence that either of these restaurants are having any problems with servicing of their grease traps. Yo, LLC’s purported concerns regarding the lack of a loading zone are therefore entirely unfounded. Access to Restrooms Finally, the Notice of Appeal argues that the Project’s provisions for access to restrooms are insufficient. Because the Project will include two physical connections between the new restaurant space and the existing hotel next door (one for staff, the other for customers), the Project provides for the restaurant’s restroom needs to be satisfied through the existing restrooms in the hotel lobby. The end result will be similar to many existing restaurants in the City, where customers make a short walk from the dining area to restrooms located just outside the restaurant.4 This arrangement fully complies with all legal requirements. The law does not require that restrooms be placed on the same parcel of real estate as the facilities they serve. Instead, the Plumbing Code states that restrooms must be provided within a maximum travel distance. In 4 For example, several restaurants at Stanford Shopping Center utilize the center’s common restrooms, rather than providing separate facilities. City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto August 8, 2018 Page 7 of 9 {3233-00002/00838264;} non-mall facilities, that distance is 500 feet. The Retail Food Code (part of the Health and Safety Code) contains various other requirements for travel distances in the 200 to 300 foot range. The maximum travel distance for the Project will be 150 feet, comfortably complying with all of these requirements. Further, in case the restaurant access to the hotel is ever severed, the Conditions of Approval require the Property to construct its own, Code-compliant restrooms; and the Project plans require Applicant to install plumbing on the Property to allow restrooms to be quickly installed, should that ever prove to be necessary. Yo, LLC argues that these Conditions of Approval are insufficient because, “There is no provision for monitoring or enforcement of this provision once the building permit is approved.” However, putting aside the fact that whoever owns the restaurant space at the time of severance would have a strong incentive to provide restrooms for staff and customers, severing the restaurant’s access to the hotel would also require physical changes that would necessitate issuance of new permits. Those permits could only be issued after a plan check, during which the City would have to determine whether the separate structures resulting from the severance comply with all applicable codes. Accordingly, the requirement that the Property’s owner install separate restrooms upon severance of the structures is fully enforceable, both practically speaking and as a matter of law. Conclusion The Project complies with all City requirements, and none of the objections raised in the Appeal withstands close scrutiny. The undersigned therefore respectfully requests that the City Council affirm the ARB’s carefully considered, unanimous approval of the Project. Sincerely, SSL LAW FIRM LLP Christine R. Wade cc: Associate Planner Samuel Gutierrez (via email) Greg Stutheit, Architect and Associate Principal, Montalba Architects, Inc. (via email) City Council and Mayor of the City of Palo Alto August 8, 2018 Page 8 of 9 {3233-00002/00838264;} APPENDIX A General Plan Policies Relevant to Project The following General Plan policies express the City’s conscious desire to develop the Downtown Commercial District in a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly manner, rather than forcing every project to accommodate demand for parking on-site: • Policy T-5.1: “All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of onstreet parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease.” • Policy T5.1.2: “Consider reducing parking requirements for retail and restaurant uses as a way to encourage new businesses and the use of alternative modes.” • Policy T5.2.2: “Study and implement pricing strategies for public parking in commercial districts, taking into consideration both employee parking demand and the needs of retailers and customers. Use pricing to encourage short term parking on street, long term parking in parking garages and the use of alternative modes of transportation.” • Policy T5.3: “Work with merchants when designating dedicated employee (long term) parking areas in public parking lots and garages.” • Policy T5.4: “Encourage shared parking where complementary demand timing is demonstrated in order to optimize parking spaces in commercial centers and employment districts.” • Policy T5.6: “Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 4:32 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Re: August 20, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #8: Stanford Fire Protection Agreement and Settlement Agreement Oops!    When I clicked on the Attachment link to the 2006 staff report at the bottom of my copy of the letter I just sent you, it didn't work.  If you have the same problem, simply go to the June 26, 2006, City Council agenda online, where the link to the Attachment for Agenda Item 7 does work.    Herb Borock      From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>  Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 11:22 PM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: August 20, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #8: Stanford Fire Protection Agreement and Settlement Agreement      Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    August 20, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      AUGUST 20, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #8  STANFORD FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT      Dear City Council:    I urge you to continue this item to a future meeting to provide adequate time for the City Council, the public, and the press to review this lengthy and complex agenda item, because the staff report and attachment for the item was not available eleven days before the meeting, which is the standard for distribution of staff-prepared agenda item material.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:33 PM 2   It is a curious coincidence that the total of all the payments by the City to Stanford are more than the first year's fees payable by Stanford under the New Service Agreement. [$5,500,000 + $1,010,000 > $6,273,111]    Station Direct Costs are the principal metric used to determine the Grand Total for the costs to be allocated by the Agreement.    The Agreement conflates the number of personnel in Stations with the actual use of those personnel on Calls for Service.    The deployment of all Fire Department personnel on Calls for Service should be a principal metric in determining Stanford's share of Station Direct Costs but that data, which is readily available, is not shown.    Did City staff and Stanford staff examine the historical use of all Station personnel on all Calls for Service to agree on Stanford's share of Direct Station Cost and then work backwards to derive the formula for the 19% cost allocation?    Or did one side of the negotiation use the historical record to obtain the actual personnel deployment data on Calls for Service and then suggest the personnel division used in the Agreement to calculate Stanford's share of Direct Station Cost?    Remember, for example, that all medical calls on the Stanford campus responded to by the Palo Alto Fire Department medic vans are responded to by medic vans from Stations in the City of Palo Alto, not from Station No. 6.    Although there is language in the Agreement at Section 2.1(c) regarding changes on the Stanford Campus that may impact resources allocated to Stanford, there is no language that addresses the effect of Stanford moving tax-exempt Academic Facilities to land in the City of Palo Alto, such as the Stanford Research Park, or building tax-exempt housing on land in the City of Palo Alto, such as the Stanford Shopping Center or the Stanford Research Park.    When Stanford's tax-exempt facilities are on the Stanford Campus, Stanford has the responsibility for paying for fire protection and medical services, but when those same tax-exempt facilities are within the City of Palo Alto, the City is responsible for paying for those services with General Fund revenues, but those Stanford tax-exempt facilities in the City would not be contributing their fair share to the General Fund.    For those interested in the text of the prior Agreement, please refer to:    Amendment Number Two to Stanford Fire Contract, June 26, 2006, CMR: 277:06:  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:33 PM 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cmrs/documents/CMR277- 06.pdf    Attachment:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cityclerkreports/documen ts/060622no7stanfordfirecontract.pdf    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock            City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:20 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Adina Levin <adina.levin@friendsofcaltrain.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 4:13 PM To:Minor, Beth; Council, City Subject:Comments on Stanford GUP Attachments:FoC Stanford GUP letter (1).pdf Honorable Council Members, This note is in regard to the discussion about the Stanford General Use Permit. Since the 2000 General Use Permit went into effect, Stanford has been a regional leader in practices to reduce solo driving and transportation impact. We hope that you and Stanford’s planning team consider these comments to strengthen Stanford’s role in helping to solve these important challenges. I am attaching Friends of Caltrain's earlier letter with regard to the General Use Permit. Two items in particular to continue to encourage from the earlier letter: * Contribution to Caltrain capacity improvements. The first phase of Caltrain electrification is currently in progress. Building on this project, scheduled for completion in 2022, Caltrain has requested and received some state funding to purchase additional cars for longer trains. With its planned growth, Stanford is expected to be one of the largest users of the additional capacity from Caltrain electrification phase 2. Therefore it is reasonable, either as environmental mitigation if technically appropriate, or as part of a development agreement, for Stanford to contribute to a fair share of the capacity increase that benefits the institution and its employees. * Provide Stanford's leading TDM benefits to long-term contract workers. Stanford, like many large employers, sources some basic functions at its facilities from contracting organizations. Our understanding is that workers for these contracting agencies are not eligible for transportation benefits. Data from Palo Alto's TMA indicates that workers without transportation benefits drive at a higher rate than workers with benefits. We urge Stanford to provide TDM benefits to these classes of workers, benefiting the workers, Stanford, the City of Palo Alto and neighbors with resulting reduction in traffic and parking demand. Thank you for your consideration, - Adina Adina Levin Friends of Caltrain http://greencaltrain.com 650-646-4344 February 2, 2018 County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110 Attention: David Rader david.rader@pln.sccgov.org Dear Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP). Friends of Caltrain is a 501c3 nonprofit focusing on sustainable transportation on the Peninsula Corridor. We respectfully submit the following comments for your consideration: Transportation Infrastructure ●Caltrain Capacity funding. Stanford’s growth, and success at encouraging transit use, will add many more riders to Caltrain, which has been running at capacity. The electrification project being constructed is the first of several steps to add capacity to the system. The EIR does not fully analyze impact on Caltrain capacity. We recommend more robust analysis on the impact of the project on Caltrain crowding, and funding contributing to the upcoming phases of Caltrain modernization, providing longer trains, longer platforms, and level boarding, which will allow Caltrain to carry more Stanford commuters and help Stanford achieve its “no net new trips” goal. ●Bicycle connections between the Palo Alto Transit Center, Stanford, and Palo Alto. Caltrain has the highest rate of bicycle use for first/last mile connections in the US. However, the routes connecting Stanford to and through the Palo Alto Transit Center are confusing and stressful. The bicycle mode share from north Palo Alto is lower than West Menlo Park, and Stanford's bikeshed studies confirm that Palm Drive has one of the lowest bicycle volumes. Therefore, it would be valuable for Stanford to partner with the City of Palo Alto, CalTrans and other agencies to create a more stress-free, continuous cycling experience along University Avenue to Palm Drive corridor, and from the Quarry district to the transit center and downtown services, including the route to/from the Homer Tunnel. Such improvements would help improve access to the transit center, but improve access to Stanford from North Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Transportation Demand Management ●Extend TDM benefits for “Other Workers.” We applaud the no-net new trips goal, and Stanford’s success over time in reducing vehicle trips. However, the EIR’s extrapolation that “Other Workers” (Temporary, casual, seasonal workers who have <50% FTE roles) are likely to have transportation patterns similar to full-time employees is problematic, since these jobs are often lower-income and workers may live in different places with different commute patterns. Commute patterns of these worker populations should be studied directly, with the results included in VMT and no net new trips assessments. Given a projected increase of 2500 “Other Workers” between 2015 and 2035 this could worker population growth account for a significant number of daily trips. Other workers should also be able to benefit from transit passes, rideshare, carpool and other TDM benefits to reduce SOV commutes that full time regular employees have in order to extend Stanford’s TDM performance and meet the “no net new trips” obligation. ●Update “offsite mitigations” to be more multi-modal, working with neighboring TDM programs. Historically, the Stanford Community plan provides an additional means to achieve No Net New Commute Trips through implementation of "offsite" programs to reduce trips in other jurisdictions. Current examples of such offsite mitigations include: 1) Marguerite riders outside the cordon, 2) hospital employees in the Commute Club, and 3) hospital employees on the East Bay bus service. Currently, the area eligible for “offsite mitigations” includes roadways proximate to the Stanford Campus. In recent years, Palo Alto and nearby communities have established TDM policies and are moving forward with Transportation Management Associations with programs to reduce vehicle trips. These organizations are typically starting from a higher drivealone mode share base, similar to where Stanford was before the No Net New Trips requirement. Building on the offsite mitigation program, we recommend that Santa Clara County change the definition of the eligible geography to a 45 minute transit or bicycle commuteshed. Offsite mitigations could include contributions to transportation management associations, joining forces to negotiate new transit routes and expand transit service with Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, and pool transportation benefits (bikeshare, carshare, etc), focused on reducing peak hour trips within the transit and bicycle commuteshed. Such an effort can significantly improve regional transportation linkages by create a wider "Stanford Plus" transit sphere of influence. Housing ●More housing on (or near) campus. Over the last several years, EIRs for Stanford’s General Use Permit and other major plans in the region show that housing near jobs results in lower VMT per person. The 3150 beds/housing units proposed in the draft GUP is welcome and much needed, but the projected jobs increase still results in a shortfall of 2425 housing units. Please consider adding more housing options particularly for administrative staff, post-doctorates and Stanford workers who have fewer local options due to high local rental prices. We also encourage Stanford to partner with the City of Palo Alto or the County of Santa Clara to explore more housing on nearby sites. ●Housing locations. Stanford proposes to change the location where affordable housing impact fees could be used from within a 6-mile radius to any location near robust transit. However, the proposal as written could logically provide funding for housing near the Antioch eBART station, SMART in Santa Rosa, ACE in Tracy or some transit location with a 2.5+hour one-way commute to Stanford. We would recommend modifying the proposal to apply to locations near transit, within a 60-minute transit commuteshed to Stanford, and favoring locations within 6 miles and a 45 minute transit commute. Since the 2000 General Use Permit went into effect, Stanford has been a regional leader in practices to reduce solo driving and transportation impact. We hope that you and Stanford’s planning team consider these comments to strengthen Stanford’s role in helping to solve these important challenges. Sincerely, Adina Levin Friends of Caltrain http://greencaltrain.com 650-646-4344 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 1:18 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; Dauler, Heather; Lloyd, Debra; Nickel, Eric; Richardson, Harriet; Dailey, Karla; Abendschein, Jonathan; Batchelor, Dean Subject:8/20 Council Agenda Questions for Items 2, 3, 4, & 5 Dear Mayor and Council Members:  On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries  made by Council Member Tanaka and Kou in regard to the August 20, 2018 council meeting  agenda.  Item 2: Determination of Potential Risk of Wildfires Caused by Electric Lines – CM Tanaka  Item 3: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office  Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2018 – CM Tanaka   Item 4: Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the ERP Planning: Information  Technology and Data Governance Audit – CM Tanaka   Item 5: Resolution Supporting a Bay Delta Plan Negotiated Settlement – CM Tanaka and Kou  Item 2: Determination of Potential Risk of Wildfires Caused by Electric Lines – CM Tanaka  Q. 1.   If this is mandated by state law, why does Council need to approve the  mitigation measures?  A. 1.   The law itself requires Council approval of mitigation measures. (Please  refer to the Discussion portion of the staff report which reads “[o]nce a  determination is made, the law mandates a second step: Council approval of  mitigation efforts....”) Specially, Public Utilities Code 8387 (c) states in part: “the  local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall, at an interval  determined by the (governing) board, present to the board for its approval those  wildfire mitigation measures….”  Q. 2.   Why is there no resource impact to this?  A. 2.   There is no resource impact because Council’s action will not modify any  operation or policy, adds no work requirements, and requires no financial  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 2 resources beyond current actions mandated by state regulations.  As noted in the  staff report, no specific activities will begin as a result of Council’s  determination.   Vegetation clearance and inspection are already required and  ongoing activities.    Item 3: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office  Quarterly Report as of March 31, 2018 – CM Tanaka     Q. 1.   What were the deficiencies?  A. 1.   I believe that this question is in regard to the ERP Planning: Information  Technology and Data Governance Audit, which is listed as “complete” in the  Quarterly Report. The audit conclusion was that the City does not have a sufficient  IT or data governance structure, including policies and procedures that clearly  define roles and responsibilities. It is essential for the City to develop IT and data  governance processes prior to implementing a new ERP system to ensure that  implementation and ongoing operation of the system are successful, in alignment  with City goals and objectives, and that existing data are accurate, consistent, and  complete before being migrated into the new system.  Q. 2.  Is the report ready now since it is already pass mid‐2018?  A. 2.   I believe that this question is also in regard to the ERP Planning: Information  Technology and Data Governance Audit. We presented that audit to the Policy &  Services Committee on June 21, 2018. It is included on the Council’s Consent  Agenda for August 20, 2018, and is available here:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66250.   Q. 3.   Currently have you found any missing items or damaged ones in the inventory  for the Mobile Device Inventory and any lapses in Security?  A. 3.   We do not provide information on what we are finding in an audit until we  publish the audit report. The reason is that the Government Auditing Standards  require that we validate, prior to issuing a report, that the evidence supports the  findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the audit report. We do  this as part of our audit quality control process, also required by the Government  Auditing Standards, which occurs at the end of the audit, after the audit report  has been drafted. We do not want to prematurely release information and then  have to reverse what we said at a later date if we were not able to validate it. This  audit is currently in the field work phase, so the auditor is in the process now of  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 3 collecting the information you requested, but we cannot release that until the  report is complete and the work has been reviewed.  Q. 4.   How far along is the report for the ones which are in the mid‐2018 phase?  A. 4.   This will be addressed more fully in the September Quarterly Report, but  here is a quick update (in same order as listed in the June Quarterly Report):   ERP Planning: Data Reliability and Integrity – Data Standardization. This  report is currently being reviewed with the applicable departments, which  is a standard process we go through to ensure report accuracy prior to  finalizing it and requesting the City Manager’s official written response.   Code Enforcement Audit. This report is being reviewed with the applicable  departments. The review process is taking longer than usual because of  the number of departments involved and the need for us to schedule  multiple meetings to go through the report with them.   ERP Planning: Separation of Duties. This report is currently being reviewed  with the applicable departments.   ERP Planning Audit: Data Reliability and Integrity of Human  Resources/Payroll Data – A report has been drafted and I expect to do my  review of it next week.   Business Registry – This audit is out for the City Manager’s official  response. I expect it to be completed in time to be on the September 11  Policy and Services Committee agenda.   Mobile Device Inventory and Security. Audit is in the field work phase.   Transferable Development Rights. Audit is still in the planning phase.   Nonprofit Organizations Audit. Audit is still in the planning phase but  should be in the field work phase starting next week.   Contract Oversight. Audit is still in the planning phase but should be in the  field work phase starting next week or the following week.  Q. 5.   Can you release some of your main concerns and what form of advice you  gave to the IT Department, and how did their participation limit your involvement?  (ERP Non‐Audit)  A. 5.   Our concerns centered around the City’s readiness for a new ERP system.  The City had not addressed the recommendations provided in the 2014 ERP  system evaluation report (CMR ID# 6192, Study Session, 2/29/16), and has  experienced turnover of key positions with more to come. Our recommendations  included that the City, prior to awarding a contract:    Establish a formal ERP governance structure to provide strategic direction,  solicit and aggregate staff input, and make informed project decisions.   Define expected business benefits and determine how to measure  success.   Identify and assess project risks, such as cost overrun and project delay,  considering the availability of resources, integration and customization  needs, and competing priorities.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 4  Develop a project plan and budget that can mitigate project risks,  considering hidden costs such as internal resources and backfill costs  required for the design phase or data cleansing.    Design and negotiate a contract that can sufficiently mitigate project risks.  Formalize contract administration roles and responsibility.  IT department staff indicated that our recommendations are being addressed, and  suggested that we discuss after the vendor selection how we can work together  moving forward. We have not attended any ERP meetings this fiscal year.  Q. 6.  How many of the 3,000 returned the surveys? (Custom Citizen Survey)  A. 6.   We received 632 responses to the Custom Citizen Survey. The response rate  was 22 percent (632÷2,879, not ÷3,000 because 121 of the surveys mailed were  returned as undeliverable).  Q. 7.   How are you planning to increase the response rate? What is the current  response rate? Are there particular demographics not responding to the survey, and  are there other ones we should be sending our surveys? Could these be done  electronically so that the people do not have to mail them in? (National Citizen  Survey)  A. 7.   The response rate was 21 percent in 2017. We shortened the 2018 survey as  a way of trying to increase the response rate. I asked all department directors to  go through the survey and delete questions where resident opinion is not  important to them and also gave the Council an opportunity to identify questions  they thought needed to be retained or could be deleted. We also deleted  demographic questions that are not used for weighting or in our analysis of how  various demographic groups respond. The 2018 surveys went in the mail last  week. The City Manager’s communication staff are posting information about it  on the City’s social media sites and Nextdoor to encourage residents who receive  the survey to respond. They also sent a press release to the media and will be  posting information about the survey on the reader board in the City Hall lobby.  We cannot target specific demographic groups because we do not have data that  shows addresses for residents who fall within any specific demographic group.  Doing so would also void the statistical reliability of the survey. The National  Research Center conducts the survey by randomly selecting a statistical sample of  residents that covers all parts of the City. Statistically, this should capture an  appropriate number of residents from various demographic groups.   Residents already have the option of responding electronically to the survey. Of  the 614 completed surveys in 2017, 149 responded online. A link to the online  survey is included in the letter residents receive with their survey packet, but  most residents continue to prefer doing the survey on paper.  Q. 8.   Are there any important issues you have come upon from the Utilities Risk  Oversight Committee & Information Security Steering Committee?  A. 8.   No. The UROCC is a forum that serves primarily as a resource for vetting  topics/issues that will come before the Utilities Advisory Commission and the City  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 5 Council at a later date. However, if we learned anything that would cause us  concern from an audit perspective, we would consider adding it to our next  annual audit work plan.  Q. 9.   Have the misallocations been researched and solved? If not, how many of  them are done? (Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews)  A. 9.   The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) conducts  the research for potential misallocations based on inquiries from us and our sales  and use tax consultant. The number cited as waiting to be researched changes  quarterly based on reviews that the CDFTA has completed and new inquiries from  us and our consultant, so the number is never going to be zero.  Q. 10.  What were the goals and objectives? (Inventory Management)  A. 10.   The objective of the inventory management audit was to determine if the  City has adequate controls to ensure accuracy and completeness of inventory  records, accountability for inventory transactions, and safeguarding of inventory.  Q. 11.   Is the management report the new one for ERP or the old SAP?  A. 11.   The inventory management audit was issued in 2014, before there were  plans for a new ERP. Thus, the recommendation was made in the context of the  current SAP system, but we would expect the reports and configuration to also be  made in a new ERP system when implemented.  Q. 12.   How has the city been monitoring duplicate invoices up to now? And how  effective and efficient is that method?  A. 12.   The City relied on SAP to prevent duplicate invoices, but the City’s SAP  configuration required a near‐exact match in subsequent invoice data to offer a  “soft warning,” which the user could bypass to accept the invoice without  verifying if the invoice was indeed a duplicate. Duplicate vendor master records in  SAP made the configuration less effective because duplicate invoices could each  be posted to a different vendor master record. This configuration control could be  considered efficient but only moderately effective because of the bypass option.  Administrative Services Department staff also stated that they relied on manual  processes, such as periodic account analysis, vendor relationships, and contracts,  which we did not view as either effective or efficient.  Q. 13.   Has whether the new e‐procurement system or tech solution can help with  the tracking and reporting of green purchases performance measures been  evaluated?  A. 13.   No, please see the implementation status for recommendation 6, which is  available here:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65429.   Q. 14.  Is it more cost efficient to hire someone who is already an expert in the field  inspections, or is it better to put them through a training program as suggested?  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 6 A. 14.   I believe that this question pertains to the Cross Bore Inspection Contract  audit. It is more cost efficient to contract out this service than to hire additional  City staff or train existing staff to do this work. The service will no longer be  needed after the inspections of all sewer lines have been completed.  Q.15.   Have the billing errors been corrected, since the due date for this  recommendation was 5/18?  A. 15.   Yes, please see the implementation status for recommendation 1.1 in the  status report, which is available here:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65405.   Q. 16.   Should the currently installed eMeters be replaced?  A. 16.   Customers who had an eMeter installed were provided the opportunity to  have their meter replaced. 55 of the 1,178 customers who had eMeters opted to  have their meter replaced. Please see the implementation status for  recommendation 2.3 in the status report, which is available here:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65405.     Item 4: Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the ERP Planning: Information  Technology and Data Governance Audit – CM Tanaka     Q. 1.   If the City assigns new responsibilities, would it just be for one person? Will it  require additional budget?  A. 1.   I do not see this as assigning new responsibilities or requiring additional  budget or staff. Paragraph 2.08.240(a)(2) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code already  requires the Director of Information Technology “To direct and manage  interdepartmental technology governance, planning and coordination activities to  accomplish specific city‐wide objectives.” So in essence, the audit is saying that  the department should do something that it is already required to do and should  be managing its staff in a manner that accomplishes that.  Q. 2.  How would this help make data more accessible to the public?  A. 2.   Yes, it should help make data more accessible to the public. It is much easier  to aggregate and publish data into a publishable format when it has standardized  formats and it is known that it represents what it purports to represent. Having  strong governance policies and practices helps accomplish that.    Item 5: Resolution Supporting a Bay Delta Plan Negotiated Settlement – CM Tanaka and Kou    CM Tanaka    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 7 Q. 1.   Does endorsing this mean we endorse cutting Palo Alto water's usage by  roughly 50% as the plan goals state (to increased flows on the Tuolumne River by  40%)?  A. 1.   This resolution endorses the goals of the Bay Delta Plan, which includes  improving the health of the Tuolumne River and endorses a voluntary settlement  among all parties (environmental groups, agricultural users, urban water users,  etc.) rather than endorsing the Bay Delta Plan as it is currently formulated. Under  the Bay Delta Plan, at normal water demand levels, 40‐50% rationing could be  necessary during dry years. Even at current depressed water usage levels, 20‐30%  rationing would be required in a dry year. The number of dry year shortages  would double or triple from the existing projected number of 1 in every 10 years  to 2 or 3 in every 10 years.  CM Kou  Q. 1.   The Tuolumne River Trust provided information that is different from the  staff report. Has staff found any factual errors in the TRT video?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL_INODOxsI&feature=youtu.be   A. 1.   As to video, just note factual inaccuracies and/or mischaracterizations  a.       TRT: SFPUC’s analysis of the Bay Delta Plan falsely characterizes the  anticipated water supply impacts.   SFPUC’s analysis is correct. It considers an appropriate design drought (longer  than has been observed in the past but realistic given climate change). TRT  represents accurately that several other agencies only plan for the minimum  drought required by the State, which up until recently was a 3‐year drought. TRT  neglects to mention that the new State Urban Water Management Plan requires a  minimum 5‐year drought plan. Given climate change and the high consequences  of losing water supply in an extended drought, staff has traditionally been  comfortable with the SFPUC’s 8.5 year standard for drought planning.  b.      TRT: The economic study prepared by SFPUC’s expert has been “debunked.”  The author of the study is an expert in the field, and the study accurately  predicted how the region responded to the most recent drought. Due to the State‐ mandated water use reduction (16% average across the region),  agencies focused  of reducing residential and dedicated irrigation customers, and almost no water  use reductions were required from businesses. Depending on the BAWSCA  agency, reductions of more than 20‐30% will require water rationing by  commercial and industrial customers that translates into reduced economic  output and job losses. A mandatory water use reduction of 50% would  significantly impact all customers.  It should also be noted that the economic  study is separate from the SFPUC’s modeling of dry‐year water supply impacts.  This model showed that , at normal water demand levels, 40‐50% rationing could  be necessary during dry years. Even at current depressed water usage levels, 20‐ 30% rationing would be required in a dry year. The number of dry year shortages  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 1:36 PM 8 would double or triple from the existing projected number of 1 in every 10 years  to 2 or 3 in every 10 years.  c.       TRT: The SFPUC has a contractual obligation with the irrigation districts to  support their position of fish flow matters.  No such contractual obligation exists. The contract cited by the TRT pertained to  an expired FERC license for Don Pedro Reservoir, a facility in which the SFPUC  holds some storage capacity. The obligation does not pertain any SRWCB  proceedings, the current FERC re‐licensing proceeding, nor future FERC re‐ licensing proceedings.   d.      TRT: Water can be purchased from other sources, such as agricultural  districts, at a reasonable price to make up for shortfalls during a drought.   Since 2001 both BAWSCA and the SFPUC have sought to enter into water  transfers, specifically to address dry year needs. To date those efforts have been  unsuccessful. Parties, including the TRT, have opposed water transfers in the past.   e.    TRT: The SFPUC opposed the Bay Delta Plan because they are planning for  massive development driven by Plan Bay Area.   The SFPUC is not a land use management agency. The SFPUC does not rely on Plan  Bay Area but on the growth projections provided by the individual land use  management agencies. It should be noted that, even at current depressed water  usage levels, 20‐30% rationing would be required in a dry year.  Q. 2.  Why was the BAWSCA statement included in the staff report, but nothing  from the Tuolumne River Trust?  A. 2.   Palo Alto is a member of BAWSCA, so it was appropriate to include  BAWSCA’s statement. There are numerous perspectives from parties commenting  on the Bay Delta Plan that were not included, including a variety of environmental  groups, agricultural groups, and urban water agencies.  Q. 3.   What role did BAWSCA play in producing the staff report?  A. 3.   BAWSCA staff reviewed the report written by Palo Alto staff.    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  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 3:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Save the existing rental housing at the President Hotel Dear City Councilmembers: It's been two months now since the Hotel President building was sold. WHAT ROLE IS THE CITY GOING TO TAKE TO HELP THE TENANTS REMAIN IN THEIR HOMES? There are viable solutions: Pass an interim urgency ordinance. Allow tenants to stay at the same rents until they move out. Place an emergency moratorium on the demotion or removal of rental housing until replacement housing is available at the same rents. This is a fair,just way to address the issue. This is an urgent issue. :You can help these tenants stay in their homes. Be creative in finding solutions. What role might the PA Housing Corporation play? Now is the time to act! Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom Low-Income Housing Committee City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 10:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:ADU's Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:    I have not read all of the information, so I am simply putting forth to you a perspective about the idea of  ADUs, from my own life.    1) infilling is a more efficient way of utilizing our space and facilities, especially transportation.  2) allowing an ADU could permit another family member ‐ in this case I am a Great Aunt ‐ to live in close  proximity to family but still have some personal space.  In my case, I am fortunate to have a home with a separate enough bedroom and bath, and family with enough  tolerance of my presence, and different enough living schedules (kitchen dances), so that I can live in the same  space as my niece and her family.  But not all homes, or family dynamics, would allow that.  3) allowing ADUs could potentially allow local teachers, firefighters and other community workers to actually  live in the community whose work they do.    In my case, since my niece is a teacher in PAUSD, I feel fortunate that she and her family can live here with me,  and bike or walk to work.    So those are my perspectives.  I hope you will consider them.    Sincerely,    Virginia Smedberg  441 Washington Ave  Palo Alto 94301  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 7:50 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 15, 2018 9:37 PM To:Council, City; Stump, Molly Subject:Appellant's Objections to New Design for 429 University Ave Attachments:Appellants' Objections to 429 University.pdf Dear Palo Alto Council Members and Ms. Stump, Please find the Appellant's objections to the newly submitted designs for 429 University Avenue in preparation of the quasi-judicial ARB hearing on Thursday August 16, 2018. Thank you, Michael Harbour, MD, MPH on behalf of Appellants for 429 University Ave Palo Alto ARB Quasi-Judicial Hearing Appellants’ Objections to 429 University Ave Design Proposal August 16, 2018 History: This project was appealed by neighbors and community members. Project was NOT approved by the Palo Alto ARB and the HRB. However, the project was narrowly approved by the city council on February 6, 2017. The applicant has exceeded her 1-year time limit and was granted an extension by the planning depart. Today: Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing as mandated by the City Council decision New Architect: Peter Tat-Ping Ko Landscape Architect: Greg Ing Reason for Quasi-Judicial Hearing: 1. Evaluate Proposed West Elevation Wall Design 2. Evaluate Landscape Details 3. Evaluate Exterior Building Materials, Colors and Craftmanship Objection to West Elevation based on Municipal Code Violation 18.18.110 1. West Elevation Wall Design is out of character and context with rest of the building design. It is not consistent nor compatible with that which was originally proposed to this ARB Board or City Council by Architect Joe Bellomo. 2. The side chevrons appear like some sort of tribal pattern and clearly stick out as an add on by a different person not related to the original project. 3. When looking eastward down University Ave, the design is not compatible with the iconic Varsity Theatre architecture, Birge Clark former Apple building and the Hotel President. It is Impossible to Evaluate the Expected Craftsmanship of the building or landscape because the applicant has not provided any background information, experience or completed past projects of either the new building architect, contractor, project manager or landscape architect. 1. Joe Bellomo and associates have disavowed themselves from this design. In a phone conversation with Mr. Bellomo, he told Dr. Harbour that “the current design is NOT his” and he is “no longer affiliated with the building.” Therefore, the applicant is obligated to resubmit the entire plan to the ARB, Council and community in its entirety for evaluation. It these plans is not satisfactory, then the ARB must immediately notify the city council of such. 2. The applicant previously praised her choice of architect for this project as the recipient of multiple award including the Birge Clark Award. She told all of us at a past ARB hearing that it would be an “iconic” building that would anchor the existing building at 102 University Ave at Alma St. He has a known track record. Now that architect is no longer affiliated and disavows this building, this must be taken into consideration for the approval. 3. The Bellomo project is unique because of it’s construction materials and craftsmanship. The applicant and her designees must convince this Board and the appellant that they have the experience and capability to construct and manage such a project. What can they offer to convince us of this? 4. It appears that the applicant has committed a “Bait and Switch” tactic to cut costs which will result in unknown quality and craftsmanship. This is too important and historic parcel to be left to chance without additional scrutiny and confirmation of quality. We must remember that Birge Clark designed buildings are to be torn down to construct this new building. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Davina Brown <browntow@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 9:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page I would like to express my support again for putting the train in a trench.  I understand that the expense is outrageous,  but it is for forever.  We do this not for ourselves and our quality of life, but for all future Palo Altans.  Please do not rule out this BEST solution because of cost.  We must and will find a way to pay for it.    Davina Brown  Palo Alto Resident for over 50 years  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Plan Dear Councilmembers, Thank you for voting unanimously to support the CA Department of Water Resources scientifically sound Bay Delta plan. I'm grateful for your leadership on this matter with its very important long-term implications for the balance we strike between those of us who seem willing to convert every bit of nature we're able to human biomass and artifact, and those who recognize that doing so impoverishes us all. Listening to the people who argued in favor of "negotiated settlement," I wondered where they were as the salmon population dropped from 100,000+ to <1,000. Realizing that they were willing to do to the Tuolome what we've done to the Colorado (now bone dry before it reaches the Gulf of California) in order to move more people into the Bay Area, all the while pretending that, "We support the goals of the plan," I felt immensely sad. Thank you again for declining to heed them. With appreciation, David Schrom ********** Magic, 1979-2018: thirty-nine years of valuescience leadership *********** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mark Moragne <mwmoragne@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 5:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear Council Members,    Thank you for endorsing the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan!    Mark Moragne    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:35 AM To:Council, City; Tam, Valerie; Keene, James; Stump, Molly Cc:Gal Eva; Satterthwaite Ruth; Keehn Suzanne; Holzemer Terry Subject:Bulb-Outs on Arastradero in Green Acres Dear Council Members. My three-minute presentation to you last night did not fit well into the two minutes that were allotted. My apologies for not also preparing a two minute version, but I had a lot to say, and, unfortunately, much went unsaid. Here is the full text of what I had hoped to say last night: "Mayor Kniss and Council Members: I am here tonight to make you aware of new concerns we in the Green Acres neighborhood have about the Arastradero road construction. The new concerns pertain to the so-called “bulb-outs” that are proposed to be added at the intersections of seven streets with Arastradero. All are on the N or NW side of Arastradero. There are none on the other side of Arastradero in our area for some unknown reason. They are large, they decrease the width of the entrances to each of those seven streets, forcing passing cars closer together, potentially leaving the rear end of a car out in Arastradero where rear end collisions might happen if the driver entering one of those seven streets stops short for some reason and/or the following driver is not paying proper attention. The worst intersection by far is at Donald Drive where students on bicycles are told to stop in a bright green box in the middle of Donald waiting for the light to turn green so they can cross Arastradero on their way to middle school. A rear end collision there might push the front car into the waiting cyclists. This could be worse as cars turning left from Donald onto Arastradero City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:30 PM 2 queue up behind the waiting cyclists. Thus, a worse-case scenario is where the waiting cyclists are pushed against any car waiting behind them. Bulb-outs at this particular intersection are, in my opinion, and the opinions of others living on Donald and Willmar, to be an incredibly poor design, leading potentially to major legal liability for the city. Signs posted by the city give a rationale for these bulb-outs. In one instance, “this corner is being extended to provide a safer refuge on the corner for pedestrians, as well as to shorten the distance a pedestrian needs to cross” the given street. Sounds textbook to us as Arastradero is not a pedestrian thoroughfare. It is vehicular arterial with little pedestrian activity. Sure pedestrian activity happens, but not in the quantities that require a "refuge" on each corner, some of which are huge. Two of us spent approximately 45 minutes on a Wednesday afternoon with two members of city staff – only one pedestrian and one jogger came by. A number of us met with two city council members on two separate occasions for about 45-60 minutes and only a handful of pedestrians/joggers came by. I drive Arastradero Road all the time and have never seen a large number of walkers in the area where the bulb-outs are proposed. Simply stated, once again, Arastradero Road is not a pedestrian thoroughfare. A good friend has written city staff indicating that the bulb-outs are “a solution in search of a problem.” I fully agree. So, what are we asking for? The elimination of all of the bulb-outs in our area. This will maintain what we have now, which we don’t think has been unsafe or dangerous. Advantages of following this recommendation: it will prevent the city from constructing something that could lead to potential legal liability if our assessments are correct that students, in particular, might be injured, which, of course, none of us want to happen, and it would save the city some money in the process. Bottom line, avoid textbook planning. Be guided as to what has happened in the past in this area and what is happening now. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:30 PM 3 Why construct something that is neither needed nor wanted? Thank you." Personally, I think Council would be remiss if you don't ask for a thorough review of all the bulb- outs that are planned for Arastradero (and Charleston as well) or city staff undertakes that review on its own. If nothing else, from a potential legal liability point of view if there is any belief that, if installed, the bulb-outs could lead to future collisions of any sort. At the very least, the Donald/Arastradero intersection, in my opinion and the opinions of others, has to be reviewed and modified (delete the bulb-outs?) to avoid any possibility of injury to students now massing in the middle of the Donald waiting for the traffic signal to turn green. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Joe Hirsch Georgia Avenue jihirschpa@earthlink.net (650) 493-9169 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:David Page <dalpage5@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 3:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:climate/solar energy "TRAILBLAZERS...Four Palo Alto firefighters arrived back into town on Aug. 9 after 15 days of battling flames and protecting properties from state wildfires... ...FIELD OF BEAMS ... Solar panels continue to be a hot item in Palo Alto, with the school district leading the charge. For board members, the installations make plenty of sense. They provide clean power and, according to a recent feasibility study, will save the district about $1.1 million over the course of their 25-year useful life. Not everyone, however, is thrilled. In May, the school board backed away from its plan to install solar panels in Palo Alto High School's front parking lot after residents argued that the installations would obscure views of historic Paly buildings." Dear Council Members Within the same article of the current Weekly [see above], we see a short description of how climate- warming touches us all, as well as how my (uninformed?) fellow citizens can feel inconvenienced when a tiny effort is made to reduce emissions of poison-pollution. This e-mail is an attempt to say thank you for pushing ahead with local emission reduction plans, and a plea to go much further towards eliminating such pollution. The fate of human civilization is not a Palo Alto-only problem, but local visionary leadership will be fondly remembered by [the dwindling number of] future generations. Thank you very much, David Page 3115 Avalon Court, Palo Alto 94306 ps: in case the crisis of climate warming seems vague, maybe some photos will help: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:26 AM 2 Found dead [ Carr Fire, 7/18 ] in Redding, from left, Emily Roberts, 5; Melody Bledsoe, 70; and James Roberts, 4. [ great-grand mother and great grand children ] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:32 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 2:00 PM To:Stump, Molly Cc:CHamilton@da.sccgov.org; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; Jonsen, Robert; Goodell, Erin; Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Alex Kobayashi; Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Micaela.Hellman-Tincher@bos.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James; Minor, Beth; Carnahan, David; VHS101@yahoo.com; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; JGreen@dailynews.com; Kleinberg, Judy; richard@alexanderlaw.com; Aram James; Andrew Pierce; Debra@firstpaloalto.com; Bear.ride@fprespa.org Subject:CPRA Request | Sex Perversion at Lytton Gardens Senior Communities Molly Suzanne Stump, JD City Attorney at City of Palo Alto CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST (made this 19th day of August, 2018) Dear Madame: Pursuant to California Public Records Act Request (CPRA) (Govt. Code 6250 § et seq.), I am requesting the release of copies of all emails and paperwork sent and received by PAPD's Detective Erin Goodell, on or around August 10, 2018 [starting July 23, 2018, through present], to and from Kevin Gerber the CEO of Covia (formerly Episcopal Senior Communities (ESC)), and others at Covia and Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (LG) re Case #18-3932. This request encompasses notes, transcripts, and recordings of telephone calls and other conversations, and date logs. Do not include correspondence between our PAPD and DA Office. As Covia's CEO oversees LG, and LG's Director is accountable to Covia, the documents I request bring to Covia's and LG's attention, several events of sexual perversion by different men at LG. Perverts include LG employees, LG residents, and homeless guy camped out at LG. More specifically, on July 23, 2018, a crime reported by an elderly woman to PAPD was sent to DA Clarissa Hamilton's "Sexual Assault Unit" for prosecution consideration. ------------ On the Sunday evening last July 22, a male resident wondered the LG hallways, waiting outside an elevator while wearing only underwear. The predator exposed his genitals, masturbated, and beckoned the opposite sex to come near. Male exhibitionism is about power over women with intent to shock, alarm, frighten and anger. That the resident understood his crime is evidenced by rapid withdrawal of hands from his genitals, when a photo was taken. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:32 AM 2 Psychiatrists unanimously agree that mentally-compromised old men, even those with Alzheimer's, do not SUDDENLY turn exhibitionist. Male exhibitionism is a predisposed mental illness that usually manifests first symptoms in teenage years and escalates over time. Exhibitionism is a felony that carries zero tolerance in a HUD-funded senior-living facility that houses mostly frail elderly women. ------------ Absent some legitimate reason for delay provided in the government code, make sure that I receive the requested documents within ten (10) days of this CPRA Request. Send all correspondence via my email to dmPaloAlto@gmail.com. Thank you. Respectfully, -Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:36 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 4:26 PM To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Cc:nhbeamer@yahoo.com; jeff@levinsky.org; ptaskovich@yahoo.com; rebsanders@gmail.com; electcormack@gmail.com Subject:Cubberley Master Plan Hello all, On behalf of Palo Alto Neighborhoods, I am writing to you to request that the October 4 meeting planned by Concordia for the Cubberley Master Plan be reconsidered and rescheduled. First, the date conflicts with PAN’s Council Candidate Forum, which will be held in Council Chambers that evening. More importantly, we do not believe an adequate community needs assessment can or should be made at a single two- hour meeting based on who shows up. As a member of the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Community Needs Subcommittee, I believe our conclusions included: “Exactly what is needed for the growing school population and what is needed for the evolving city of Palo Alto requires more work and expertise than was available to the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee. PAUSD has the capacity to identify its needs as population growth unfolds and to identify the best way to meet those needs. Deciding which buildings to build or remodel as well as deciding on renting and leasing priorities for a community center requires a very thorough community needs assessment to identify what services and opportunities are needed by the community, where such services exist now, and what services are best offered at Cubberley to meet community needs. We need professional expertise to do this work well. Only by investing in such a systematic study with the school district as a willing partner can we be sure we are planning well for a facility that will serve Palo Alto for years to come. Such a study will require that PAUSD and the Palo Alto Planning Department work together to determine how to meet this broad range of community needs.” We need services for all ages and cultures, singles and families, workers and retirees. We need specificity on community needs, obtained through a professional Community Needs Assessment. While there is great pressure to use the entire site for a school, the reality is that the City owns a portion of the site and there is just as great a need for a modern, comprehensive community center, not simple a library with meeting rooms as we have at Mitchell Park. I repeat, a single two-hour, who shows up meeting does not qualify as a true needs assessment. Thank you for your consideration Sheri Furman PAN Co-chair City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:35 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 11:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:Peter Drekmeier Subject:Delta plan decision tonight Thank you for supporting your Bay with your action tonight at the City Council. Peter Drekmeier: thank you for being so pro active on a matter which impacts the quality of all of our lives. Kind regards, Alice Schaffer Smith 850 Webster Street #520 Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:NRT <nrt@hamilton.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 1:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Delta Water Quality Plan Dear Council members,  A heartfelt Thank You for unanimously voting to endorse the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. You held firm even  though the staff report was against.  Nancy Teater, Hamilton Ave  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Even the banks are in support Time to support low-income tenants Freddie Mac to lower financing costs for landlords who cap rent risesMarketWatch · 1 day ago Freddie Mac | Rent Control | Real Estate Refinancing The Real Deal · 1 day ago Web resulFreddie Mac Has a New Plan to Cap Rent Increases - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/.../freddie-mac-looks-to-cap-rent-increases-with-new-financing-pro... 1 day ago - Freddie Mac, the country's largest backer of apartment loans, is rolling out a ... The initiative acts similar to rent control—which has been gaining ... Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF Low Income Housing Committee City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:James F. Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Please support the State Water Board’s proposal for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Dear Council Members, Thank you! Ya'll supported this proposal for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, that's fantastic!!! Much appreciated, James ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: James Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com> To: "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 06:30:38 AM PDT Subject: Please support the State Water Board’s proposal for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. I want the City Council to deny the staff recommendation and instead support the State Water Board’s proposal for the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Thank you! James 730 College Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:36 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 9:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Peter Drekmeier; Geri Mc Gilvray Subject:Fwd: item 5 I repeat: PLEASE Support the optimistic plan of Peter Drekmeier. All species need healthy water in our rivers. I saw central valley flood irrigating on several occasions. Crazy! Geri McGilvray Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Date: August 18, 2018 at 5:24:05 PM PDT To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org, Peter Drekmeier <peter@tuolumne.org>, kbennett@luxsci.net Cc: A-MIKE BECHLER <mlb@thegrid.net>, Geri Mc Gilvray <geri@thegrid.net>, IMOGENE AND ROCHARD HILBERS <HILBERS@SBCOBAL.NET> Subject: Re: item 5 Hello, PLEASE support the BAY DELTA PLAN. The TUOLUMNE river needs MORE natural flow in order to suppport any of the healthy wild creatures, trees and plants necessary for all species to survive. Do not allow the SFPUC to Keep manipulating their habitat. Look what happened in Yellowstone when killing all the wolves caused the grazing dear to destroy all the vegetation there. Unbelievable! Interconnected habitats are crucial to everything, everywhere. Healthy water should flow into our bay. Geri McGilvray EVERYDAY SAFETY and WALKABILITY, Midtown, Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 7:59 PM To:M. Gallagher Cc:chuck jagoda; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Ruth Chippendale; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Cherrill M. Spencer; Council, City; Wendy Peikes; Gloria Burd; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces I need to express my solidarity with all individuals and groups working for housing. I admit I was disappointed in the Palo Alto Forward 's endorsement of the developers' plan for only somewhat lowered rents than market rate; I do share their prioritization of housing. For me, teachers are the guardians of civilization, Horatius at the Bridge. But it is also in the economic interest of their employers, the PAUSD aka us, to compensate them in housing if inflation drives the price of housing out range of the salaries we are paying them, as it has at the present time, and we have plenty of public land to offer desirable, stabilized affordable rent as part of their salary if they wish. As we speak, Palo Alto has hired expensive consultants to dope out something ELSE, other than teacher housing, for that land. Remember, this is where we came in. Palo Alto City stepped in to buy part of Cubberly because PAUSD was foolishly selling off its irreplaceable, steadily growing in value real estate. The same is true, on a smaller scale, of policemen and firemen, where the public owns land connected with those functions that could house public servants. What I wanted, and had previously asked for as a salvaged Maybell, was for the City Council to set its sights on three times as many sro units of 200 square feet as were projected for 60- 600 square - foot units--i.e.180 small units. When I talked to the developers, they revealed that they wanted 2,000 per apartment x60 (120,000) and $600. times 180 equals only $108,000. However, the City has the power to allow additional floors, and count the FAR as only applying to the residential part. so that a ground floor might have been added comprising La Comida, the Betty Wright Swim Center, the senior YMCA , a small child care center, a small cafe, perhaps a library media annex, a jitney bus to run everybody to transit, library, voting, shopping and volunteer work; there wold be no in-house parking and residents would have to agree not to park on the public street. There would be basement storage rented at the same rate per square foot as residential. All this would be rent controlled. To winnow down the number of applicants, one could make the building no smoking. This residence would have be exquisitely gardened and have a garden balcony, to accommodate the Council's notion that Palo Alto is a superior town in every respect-- along those same lines, might I timidly remind whoever that the most genteel language we can use might be helpful in persuading the Palo Alto City Council that homeless people are not low class? In solidarity, Stephanie From: "Roberta Ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> To: "M. Gallagher" <writing2win@gmail.com>y Cc: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "chuck jagoda" <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, "Ruth Chippendale" <grchippendale@yahoo.com>, "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:52:40 PM Subject: Re: Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 2 Thanks for this. PAF is NOT supportive of low-income housing and need to be exposed as disingenuous. On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:36 AM, M. Gallagher <writing2win@gmail.com> wrote: Have folks read this article w/ comments from the publi https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2018/06/01/citys-move-to- require-fewer-parking-spaces-sparks-concerns Mary Gallagher, B.S. Content Strategist 650-683-7102 Copyright 2018 Security Alert Notice The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer. Thank you. On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:05 AM, WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com> wrote: Of interest to writing a letter/email on this? Forwarded by Judy A. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:57 PM, D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 3 Joshuah Mello Chief Transportation Official Palo Alto's Transportation Division Mr. Mello: Don't ask me to do your job; you have the address. Handicapped must come first. This downtown Palo Alto property has, at minimum, a quasi-public nature given their Mission Statement and the Founding Documents for Lytton Gardens Senior Communities. -Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com From: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:38 PM Subject: RE: Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Ms. Martell:   Thank you for writing. Is this within the public right‐of‐way (on‐street parking) or in the private Lytton  Gardens parking lot?   Regards,   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 4     JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP Chief Transportation Official OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org office: 650.329.2520   fax: 650.329.2154      From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com]  Date: Mon, August 13, 2018 5:34 PM Subject: Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces    cc: Lauing, Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly  <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>; Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>; Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>;  Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>   To: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Joshuah Mello Chief Transportation Official City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 5 Palo Alto's Transportation Division Dear Mr. Mello: Why has Palo Alto's downtown Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (LG), 656 Lytton Avenue, been allowed to obliterate five (5) Handicap Parking spaces in front of their entrance? This includes paved asphalt sans parking lines, and red curbs. For decades, PAPD ticketed autos without Handicap Plaques that parked in front of LG. --Two of the five former parking spots share a LG dumpster. Together, the site of all five former parking spaces resembles an expanding entryway for LG, and add greatly to the aesthetics of their building. Curious minds want to know why FIVE downtown Handicap Zones have "vanished like a fart on the breeze". Please respond. Sincerely, -Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:34 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 4:09 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Standriff; Mayor; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; huidentalsanmateo; robert.andersen; blackstone@blastfitness.com; Leodies Buchanan; bballpod; Chris Field; Daniel Zack; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas; hennessy; steve.hogg; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kclark; leager; Tom Lang; Mark Kreutzer; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; mmt4@pge.com; scott.mozier; nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; newsdesk; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; Mark Waldrep; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 3:16 PM Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 3:06 PM Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 2:45 PM Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sunday, Aug. 19, 2018 To all- More information. KCBS this morning just after 11AM had a woman on from Cal-Fire. She said that we no longer have a "fire season" in California and that it is now a year-round phenom. Warmer temperatures, dryer conditions make for more wildfires and during more parts of the year. She is indicating that the people at Cal-Fire, at least, now believe that the climate has changed, at least in California and other western states. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:34 AM 2 Climate change may be a hoax cooked up at Stanford, but something has changed to increase the frequency and severity of wildfires, at least in the opinion and experience of Cal-Fire. She said that if you live in California, you are now subject to wildfires, and you should be prepared to evacuate! Even if you live in an area which does not seem to put you at risk for wildfires, you are subject to them now. She said that wildfires are ferocious and that the embers they produce can land a mile out in front of the fire and start new fires. She also said that residents of Santa Rosa, Calif. never thought, in October, 2017, that a fire there would jump Hwy. 101 and burn thousands of home, but it did. This may all be scare-talk by wild-eyed liberals from the Bay Area. You decide. If it is, people at Cal- Fire should be disciplined for scare-mongering. She gave a website, once, and said it quickly, to help all residents of California prepare to evacuate quickly. www.readyforwildfire.org. Thankfully, KCBS repeated it. When you get to that website, you have to scroll and click again. Cal-Fire should get the website right, but I know they are pretty busy right now. If every home-owner in California now has a home in a fire-prone area, we are going to face escalating homeowners' insurance premiums. Prop. 13 saved us from rampant, outrageous property tax gouging by school districts and local governments, but who will save us from this? We may have to elect a President who has some concern for the suckers, the American people. The current one has as his paramount goal the in-your-face screwing of 99% of the American people, all to enrich his fellow one-percenters. $716 billion was just passed for the DOD in the coming year when half that would deter and defeat any foe or combination of foes. It is more than the next 20 largest industrial nations put together spend on defense. That makes sense since we provide a free military defense for the next 20 largest, and richest, industrial nations. The United States pays 70% of the cost of NATO, by Trump's own recent public complaint. Some of those wasted billions should be re-directed to controlling the severe wildfires in California and other western states. There are things that could be done to address the now severe, year-round wildfires plaguing California and other western states with their months long severe air pollution which Californians are forced to breath. Forest management practices in California have been terrible, with even the smallest forest fire snuffed out immediately. Before the modern era, moderate wildfires cleared out the fuel. One thinks of building fire breaks during the non-fire season, but the area covered by California's forests is immense. I've suggested the simple expedient of cutting dead trees down, piling them up and soaking them with retardant. I notice that fires sometimes jump from tree-top to tree-top. If trees are horizontal on the ground, and have some retardant on them, how could that propagation take place? What if big firebreaks were created with this technique, several miles wide, and in the non-fire season, if there still is such a thing. That would be expensive, but we are spending huge money to fight wildfires in California now. We are told that embers can City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:34 AM 3 travel large distances, so those could defeat big fire breaks in some cases, but such fire breaks might help limit the spread of a wildfire. I think that extreme vigilance would help, and that means surveillance. I vaguely recall hearing recently that satellites can see small wildfires. Maybe we need more satellites to do that. Look-out towers used to help spot fires, but many of them are now gone. Maybe we build some again. Aircraft flying over forests could spot fires when they are small. Perhaps we have to build up a real forest fire surveillance air force, armed with infra- red equipment, to see fires before they get big. What if we put fire sensors in the forests and had them transmit to satellites any indication of a wildfire getting started. That technology probably already exists. If it does not, it would be an easy task for Silicon Valley to undertake. Then we install thousands of such sensors in our forests. Cameras, smoke detectors, heat sensors, microphones, humidity and wind measurement equipment could all be included in such sensors. Maybe they could be dropped from aircraft into the forests. Stealing or damaging one could be made a very serious crime. The sensor itself could report any attempt to steal or disable it. The fire retardant drops by the DC-10 (s) and the 747 (s) do really work. I suggest we have five or ten times the number of such craft that we have now in California. Expensive for sure, but we are going to need them, and look what we spend now fighting the fires after they start and grow huge. Then pre-position a LOT of fire retardant where these planes can re-fill. Designate more airports for them dwell in and fly from. Enact laws that will allow State and federal officials to limit commercial air traffic, if need be, when these planes are called into action. Rich Republicans who own the airlines won't like this at all, but these planes should have top priority. We now have a public health crisis in California, with the residents here breathing dangerous wildfire smoke for months and months on end every year. The wealthy owners of the TV stations in Fresno are having their on-air people lie to minimize the health impacts. After I complained, they are reducing that, but Friday night, one weather man here declared that "the sky is clear over Fresno. It's great to have Friday night football back"! As he said this, the graphic by his shoulder said that the air was "hazy" that night. The people having teens play football on such a night should be prosecuted and the station should lose its broadcast license. So there are a few suggestions I have, without really trying hard to develop solutions. But develop and implement them we will, or the Central Valley of California will become unfit for human habitation. BTW, KCBS reported this AM that the "Ferguson fire" in Mariposa Co. in and near Yosemite is now fully contained. It raged for over a month, burned 150 square miles of forest, and filled the Central Valley with dangerous wildfire smoke for that entire time. And that is just ONE of the 18 or so serious wildfires that have raged for over a month in California. The "Car fire" near Redding Calif. has been huge, destroyed over 1,000 homes, and is probably still burning. The "Mendocino Complex fire" in Lake and other counties has been the biggest wildfire in California history. Home values, insurance premiums? They will go in opposite directions as this continues. We need leadership in government to address this crisis. All I have seen so far is a little bit of desultory hand-wringing. L. William Harding Fresno ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:34 AM 4 Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 2:34 AM Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:35 AM Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:40 AM Subject: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Here is a "good" review of the Calif. wildfires to date this year. October is the worst month. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/10/why-california-fire-season-is-off-to-worst-start-in-10-years/ I was looking for a map showing "fire prone areas" of Calif. to see who will get the huge premium hikes. This does not show it. Mon. August 13, 2018 To all- Mighty KCBS SF, broadcasting the truth into the Central Valley, reported this morning that the Calif. State Insurance Commissioner warns again now the following: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:34 AM 5 Ins. Cos. may stop offering fire insurance for homes in fire prone areas of Calif. If they do offer it, it may cost more. They may cancel policies for homes in fire-prone areas. He said that this is not at a crisis level yet, but could get there. https://www.thestate.com/news/business/article216586725.html I guess we have to nose around and see if our home(s) are in a fire prone area. If it is, you may be paying more for coverage, if you can get it. Even if it is not, you may be paying more. I'd be surprised if this is reported on local TV in Fresno, since it could be bad for business. If Fresno City Hall plans to approve 50,000 new homes to the east getting near the trees, the homes may be un-insurable. City officials had better warn their developer friends. It would be wrong to take their money if the homes they approve are uninsurable and therefore un-salable. I won't spread this mail far and wide. We don't want to build in the expectation that we are all now ripe for big ins. premium hikes. It would be interesting to see a map of Fresno County indicating where fire-prone areas are and to know who drew up the map. That last one is always important. And notice that, regarding the ins. companies recovering the $12 billion they are laying out just in the wine country to homeowners there, they can't recover that from the rest of us in one year. State law requires them to screw the rest of us with higher premiums over several years. I wonder how the insurance industry convinced people in Sacramento to make that the law. LH City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 10:07 PM To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Keene, James; Council, City; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; ibain@redwoodcity.org; Binder, Andrew; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Perron, Zachary; Kilpatrick, Brad; Cullen, Charles; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Constantino, Mary; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Minor, Beth; Carnahan, David; Tony Dixon; sscott@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; Lee, Craig; Kniss, Liz (internal); fred124c41 @gmail.com; Kan, Michael; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; court@courtskinner.com; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; allison@padailypost.com; cromero@cityofepa.org; emibach@padailypost.com; apardini@cityofepa.org Subject:Here's how California became the most secretive state on police misconduct http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-california-police-discipline-secret-20180815-story.html Here's how California became the most secretive state on police misconduct Liam Dillon City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 3 Former state Sen. Gloria Romero introduced a bill more than a decade ago that would have allowed the public to access police discipline hearings and some records. It was defeated in the face of fierce opposition from police unions. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times) In the 1970s, Los Angeles police officers were furious that past complaints against them increasingly were making their way into court cases. So LAPD officials did something radical: They took more than four tons of personnel records dating to the 1940s and shredded them. That decision resulted in the dismissal of more than 100 criminal cases involving officers accused of wrongdoing whose records had been purged, sparking public outrage. The Legislature responded by passing a law that ensured officer discipline records would be preserved — but also made it nearly impossible for anyone to learn about them. The action, driven by police unions, began a decades-long process that has made California the strictest state in the nation when it comes to protecting police confidentiality. That could change in the next few weeks, with lawmakers in Sacramento considering a landmark effort to increase disclosure. Repeated efforts to open access to misconduct records have run into aggressive opposition from the unions, one of the most powerful political forces in the Capitol and city halls around the state. Lawmakers who championed transparency faced threats of union opposition at election time. Police unions repeatedly have argued that California’s confidentiality rules protect officer safety and privacy — and prevent cops’ names from being dragged through the mud. But this year, a group of California legislators is confronting police unions in ways once unthinkable. They argue the organizations are out of touch with public sentiment over how officers use force and interact with communities of color. The shift comes amid the backdrop of the Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform movements. “It’s hard to build trust … when police keep secret how they respond to killing members of the public and hide serious misconduct,” said Peter Bibring, director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of California. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 4 The latest proposal to make some misconduct records public faces a key decision in the Legislature this week. While passage is far from assured, some union leaders privately are conceding that a measure of disclosure might be inevitable. Robert Harris, a director for the union that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers, said high-profile videos capturing police using force — and the protests that followed — have put his side on the defensive. “We’re kind of at the table trying to work with them, not because of the validity of their arguments but because we’re watching this movement create some hostility in our communities,” Harris said. “The profession of law enforcement is under siege.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 5 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 6 (Los Angeles Times) No other state has locked away citizen complaints and internal investigation files like California. Records of misconduct that results in suspensions and other significant discipline are public in 21 states. Only California, Delaware and New York have specially enshrined confidentiality laws that single out police disciplinary files. California is alone in denying prosecutors direct access to the records. A Times investigation found that past misconduct, whether alleged or proven, routinely is kept hidden in court as a result of California’s police privacy laws. The road to secrecy began in 1974, when the California Supreme Court ruled that defendants had a right to know about complaints that had been lodged against officers testifying in their cases. Defense attorneys started asking for information that might cast doubt on officers’ testimony. It was during the barrage of requests that the LAPD destroyed complaints dating to 1949 that hadn’t resulted in a finding of wrongdoing. The leader of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, or PORAC — the state’s largest law enforcement labor organization — complained that criminal defendants could now “embark on fishing expeditions into peace officers’ personnel files.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 7 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 8 First-term Gov. Jerry Brown, left, appears with California Atty. Gen. Evelle Younger on NBC's "Meet The Press" in 1978. Younger was the principal backer of the police confidentiality bill that Brown signed into law the same year. (Associated Press) In 1978, state Atty. Gen. Evelle Younger sponsored the legislation that required departments to keep misconduct records but also expressly blocked public access and made it much more difficult to view them in criminal court. Under the bill, defendants would have to persuade a judge to examine an officer’s confidential file, in private, and decide if there was relevant information to disclose. The Legislature passed the measure unanimously, sending it to Gov. Jerry Brown, then in his first term, who signed it. Later that year, after Brown won reelection, his chief of staff credited law enforcement as one of most significant endorsements that led to his victory. After the law took effect, a slice of police misconduct records remained available to the public. In Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and other major cities, civil service commissions or police review boards considered officer discipline issues in open hearings. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that the confidentiality law also applied to those hearings. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 9 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:18 AM 10 As a state senator, Gloria Romero repeatedly tried to pass legislation to loosen restrictions on police disciplinary records but was stymied by police unions. "It's a pack. Like wolves coming at you," she said. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times) That prompted Sen. Gloria Romero, a Democrat from Los Angeles, to introduce a bill to reopen disciplinary hearings and make some police records directly available to the public. Law enforcement unions fiercely opposed what they described in letters to lawmakers as an attempt to undermine their “sacred” right to privacy. John Stites, a union leader from Southern California, warned in an email to a lobbyist that if the bill passed, police would try to defeat a ballot measure seeking to extend the time some legislators could remain in office. “There is no compromise on this. Ensure it be understood that this will only be the beginning,” Stites wrote in the message, which quickly made its way to lawmakers. At a hearing for Romero’s bill in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, law enforcement officials filed into the committee room’s front rows — seats typically reserved for legislators and their staffs. So many police officers and lobbyists stood to express their opposition that the line extended out the door. Ron Cottingham, then head of the law enforcement union PORAC, told the committee that Romero’s proposal was “one of the most insidious and dangerous bills we’ve seen come along in many years and maybe decades in Sacramento.” The bill died without a vote. The following year, Romero tried and failed again. She said in a recent interview that the experience showed her why police unions are so feared in the Capitol. “It’s a pack. Like wolves coming at you,” Romero said. “Other [legislators] see it, and you’re basically like meat thrown to the lions.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:tomforcouncil@gmail.com; cory@corywolbach.com Subject:Limits on driver services Hey I think we need to cap And limit The number of drivers who are permitted to operate and pick up passengers in our  city limits. They are a menace they drive like idiots in my neighborhood they routinely run stop signs. Mark weiss  downtown North other cities have done this. Our civilization is at stake.    Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:veronica <mary_etriggs@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 12:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Loud noises from city repairs I do not know to whom sent these complains so I sent to the City Council     Since  last 30 days the city has engaged to perform some repair jobs during the middle of the  night, sometime in July  they performed a job in the middle of the night for about 4 hours in Middlefield with Loma Verde, producing laud noises  and flash light , again, last night in Loma Verde AVE close to Middlefield they have some kind the job with a heavy  machineries broking the concrete and generating very laud noises, this happened from 11:00 PM to 4:30 AM.  I understand that some time are emergencies that require repair, but also the people in charge should considerer how  and when those repairs should be done with a minimum disturbing to the citizens.  I truly believe the quality of life in Palo Alto is deteriorating .I live in this city since 1969 and I can see the respond from  the Police to the management it have a lot to said .   .        Sent from Mail for Windows 10    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:35 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 12:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Meeting on Cubberley - October Hi Folks: Inspired by Chuck’s post here is what I just posted: aram First things first: We need to file a public records act request with the city and school district to determine how much the consulting firm, Concordia, is being paid. Second how did communities of color and the poor post -Katrina feel about their inclusion or exclusion from the Unified New Orleans Plan? Will Concordia recruit community fellows from the marginalized, underserved and unhoused members of the Palo Alto community? Or in the alternative, will the fellows recruited have to rank high on their willingness to be manipulated by Concordia, the city and the school district ? Will the Brown Act apply to the meetings, so that all members of the public who wish to speak, have an absolute right to do so? I’m hopeful a reasonable percentage of the 35 acres will be permanently dedicated to housing the formerly unhoused. In order to have any chance of making this happen advocates for the unhoused and marginalized members of the community, and their supporters, will have to be well organized, pack the meetings, and be fully informed on the all relevant issues, including zoning laws. In fact, the community may need to raise funds for an attorney who knows this area of the law and can assist us in winning a fair shares of the 35 acres for those normally excluded from the city’s vision. Aram On Aug 20, 2018, at 9:03 PM, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for the reminder. I'll watch. Here's what I commented to the Weekly on the article whose link you sent. C Posted by cdogz a resident of Ventura 0 hours ago Cubberley Campus is a commons-- something owned by all. It was been sanitized so that only people who aren't homeless or who don't look homeless can use it. It is a great resource for all. Small interest groups can exist there whereas they could never afford local commercial rents. In 2013, Palo Alto let Jim Keene lead the expulsion of City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:35 PM 2 poor and unhoused folks who camped there on the ground and in vehicles and contributed to the community. It is time for the common resource to be available to all, not just the whiter, wealthier members of the community who one day may not be so wealthy and will appreciate the option to use this common resource. Virus-free. www.avast.com On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:26 PM, WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com> wrote: Please watch for dates so you can attend (: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/08/18/first-community-meeting-on- cubberley-set-for-october -- Chuck City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Liza Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 1:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the Rail Committee Home Page Dear members of the Palo Alto Rail Committee, My name is Liza I am a junior at Gunn HIgh School and a reporter for the Oracle, Gunn High School's student newspaper. For our next issue, we will be covering Palo Alto's plans regarding CalTrain grade separation. I would be happy to be able to speak on the phone with one of you sometime in the coming week. I will be available throughout this weekend as well as on week days after 4pm. Would any of you be available to speak with me? Please let me know what times work best for you. In addition, is there anyone else you would recommend that I speak to regarding this topic? Thank you for your help. I am looking forward to speaking with you. Best regards, Liza City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:davherzl@sbcglobal.net Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 7:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the Rail Committee Home Page There is a post in Nextdoor.  'Train on wall' versus 'Train in shallow trench' option for Charleston and Meadow train intersections - Palo Alto City Rail Committee meeting notes This is what was presented in the past.  The posting provided the good and bad of each option.  Overwhelmingly the community does not want a raised tracks between Charleston and Eastmeadow.   The community wants Rail under Road as first option and Hybrid Road over Rail – Basically some form of a trench or  tunnel.  Can you please survey the community and represent what we would like.  Thanks  David Herzl  4135 Park Blvd.  Palo Alto, CA 94306   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:cindy goral <cindy@goral.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:27 AM To:board@pausd.org; Council, City Subject:MOU between PAPD and PAUSD Dear Honorable Council Members and School Board Members, In tonight's school board meeting, there was a discussion about the revised MOU between the PAPD and PAUSD, which was passed by the City Council on August 13, 2018 before having been reviewed by the School Board. While the primary purpose of the revised MOU was to add section M. in Exhibit A to address requirements of the Resolution Agreement between OCR and PAUSD, there were additional sections added to Exhibit A unrelated to this issue. In particular, Section I is entitled "Protocols for Involuntary Psychiatric Hold" and Section J states "Use of Mechanical Restraints During Transport." Section J states: "As required by PAPD policy, the SRO or responding officer shall use mechanical restraints on a student being transported to a medical facility, but the SRO or the responding officer will make an effort, when possible, to do so out of view of other students...." Ms. Baten Caswell asked whether restraint was a requirement and what does a mechanical restraint mean? The police officer who was in attendance at the meeting stated per PAPD policy, it is a requirement and it means handcuffs. In looking at the PAPD policy dated March 2017, which I believe is the most recent policy, it states in section 418.5 "When transporting any individual for a 5150 commitment...officers may transport individuals in a patrol unit and shall secure them in accordance with the Handcuffing and Restraints Policy." The Handcuffing and Restraints Policy 306 states 306.2 states: “When deciding whether to use any restraint, officers should carefully balance officer safety concerns with factors that include, but are not limited to: - The circumstances or crime leading to the arrest - The demeanor and behavior of the arrested person - The age and health of the person - Whether the person is known to be pregnant - Whether the person has a hearing or speaking disability. In such cases, consideration should be given, safety permitting, to handcuffing to the front in order to allow the person to sign or write notes - Whether the person has any other apparent disability” 306.3.3 states: "A juvenile under 14 years of age should not be restrained unless he/she is suspected of a dangerous felony or when the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the juvenile may resist, attempt escape, injure him/herself, injure the officer or damage property" 306.4 states: "Handcuffs, including temporary nylon or plastic cuffs, may be used only to restrain a person's hands to ensure officer safety. Although recommended for most arrest situations, handcuffing is discretionary and not an absolute requirement of the Department. Officers should consider handcuffing City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:44 AM 2 any person they reasonably believe warrants that degree of restraint. However, officers should not conclude that in order to avoid risk every person should be handcuffed, regardless of the circumstances." PAPD policy clearly states that use of handcuffs is not an absolute requirement, contrary to what was reported this evening. In addition, the definition of a mechanical restraint goes beyond handcuffs and is "Any restrictive device (e.g., seatbelt, straitjacket, vest, or physical confinement) used to restrict a person's free movement, most commonly in emergency situations." Other devices described in the PAPD policy under restraints are 306.5 Spit Hoods, 306.6 auxillary restraint devices such as chains and belts, and 306.7 leg restraints. If the intent is handcuffs, say handcuffs. Using a mechanical restraint of any kind on someone with a mental health issue is demeaning. It should only be done when absolutely necessary if there is risk of injury to the student or officer. Stating in the MOU that transporting a student on a 5150 requires a mechanical restraint 100% of the time is not in line with the current PAPD Handcuffing and Restraints Policy. Section J of the MOU should not be adopted as written. Furthermore, I urge Council Members and PAUSD staff to include mental health experts for guidance and review when writing policies around psychiatric issues in the future. Respectfully, Cindy Goral City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:31 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:News posted Aug 15 on city website I support the City Auditor's effort to improve the sample size but this raises new and old issues. The serial reporting of citizen opinions is very important. 1. The survey data will be collected over an extended time frame in 2018 reflecting respondents completing questionnaires with different sets of information. For example, the recent publicity from the Mayor's traffic remarks and retraction creates a bias in the questionnaire returns. One way to manage this differential is to compare results from the two mailings. The Survey company can be asked to render a professional opinion about samples and result bias. 2. It would be helpful for the public to understand how much lower Palo Alto response rate is. 3.. I repeat my ongoing plea to Council and City Manager that survey results are very important feedback to both citizens, city staff and Council. Withholding survey results for such an extended period of time delays formulation of improved city process, budgets and staffing to address embedded problems consistently identified by the annual survey. 4. Council has opportunity to evaluate the need for survey comparisons with other cities operating in very different environments. This feature of the survey slows down reporting of results available to the Council and citizens. 5. The built-in time gap between compilation and release of survey results is counter to modern quality assurance. Thank you. I look forward to January 2019. Neilson Buchanan ---------excerpt from city website------- The City of Palo Alto is upping the number of residents receiving this year’s National Citizen Survey by 1,500 in an effort to increase participation rates, which have been dropping in recent years. While only 21 percent responded to the City’s survey last year, lower response rates to surveys is a trend nationally. City officials are hoping that increasing the total number of residents receiving the survey will increase the overall pool of respondents. The surveys were sent out starting last week to a total of 4,500 randomly selected Palo Alto households. This year, survey responses must be postmarked and returned by September 21 to be included in the final results. City of Palo Alto, CA - News Details City of Palo Alto, CA - News Details City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:31 AM 2 Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 9:32 PM To:Keene, James; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; HRC; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed Cc:kamala_harris@harris.senate.gov; Nathan_Barankin@harris.senate.gov; Marguerite_Biagi@harris.senate.gov; Clint_Odom@harris.senate.gov; Lily_Adams@harris.senate.gov; dustin.brandenburg@mail.house.gov; katie.weiss@mail.house.gov; liz.argo@mail.house.gov; Anthony.Ratekin@mail.house.gov; Jilian.Plank@mail.house.gov; kelsey.smith@mail.house.gov; christopher.livingston@mail.house.gov; alexandra.gourdikian@mail.house.gov; Philip_Maxson@mcconnell.senate.gov; asoltani@aclunc.org; btucker@aclunc.org; organizing@aclunc.org; aschlosser@aclunc.org; mrisher@aclunc.org; info@sanjosenaacp.org; naacpsfbr@att.net; actso@naacpnet.org; hollywoodbureau@naacpnet.org; info@lccr.com; info@anamericaninjustice.com; bharat_ramamurti@warren.senate.gov; elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov; Dan_Geldon@warren.senate.gov; Stephanie_Akpa@warren.senate.gov; blanca.jimenez@mail.house.gov; rykia.dorsey@mail.house.gov; scheduling49@mail.house.gov Subject:No Video? James Keene  Palo Alto City Manager:    Mr. Keene, How many days does it take to tell me whether or not Ofc. Conde recorded the incident? Based upon Captain Binder’s initial response and now subsequent failure to respond I have to conclude that your police command staff is covering up Ofc. Conde’s violation of the Constitution the same way they covered up the violations committed against Tajae Murray. One thing is not disputed and that is Ofc. Conde turned on the lights of his patrol car to pull me over. Turning on the lights of the patrol car turns on the camera system. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 2 Thus if there is no recording than your officers are lying just like in the Murray case. https://chiefburns.weebly.com/murray-dog-attack.html City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 3 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Murray Dog Attack - Palo Alto Police Chief Dennis Burns ... chiefburns.weebly.com Just like the Tyler Harney case the City of Palo and the Palo Alto Police settles another excessive use of force law suit before the Plaintiff, in this case Tajae Murray could obtain the evidence as to why there is no recording of the Dog Jumping Out of the Patrol Car. obtain the evidence as to why there is no recording of the Dog Jumping Out of the Patrol Car.   And of course there is the feature called : "Record After the Fact" that ensures all encounters are recorded. https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/systemic-flaws.html https://watchguardvideo.com/software/record-after-the-fact City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 4 https://www.scpr.org/news/2013/06/28/37967/doj-deputies-at-la-county-sheriff-s-stations-in-la/ https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4079 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 5 ‘Coffee with the Captain’ recap  by M. Dilworth • April 12, 2012    “If you don’t feel you are being treated with respect or there is a lack of professionalism, those are the things I  want to know about,” he said. “Those are the things we can change… we can hold our own accountable and  we have been doing that quite a bit over the past 12 months.”  Jonsen said the Lancaster Station had met with the Justice Department as part of the federal investigation  into alleged discriminatory policing by law enforcement in the Antelope Valley. He said the Justice  Department gave him some feedback, which he took to heart.  “The feedback was that we need to be more engaged in the community, because there’s a perception out there  that we’re not connected…” Jonsen. “I agree there’s room for improvement, there always is, and that’s what  we’re trying to do.”  Jonsen said respect is a two‐way street, and the community had to do its part in giving deputies the necessary  respect as well. He said there was a misperception that Lancaster deputies routinely used excessive force when,  in reality, the station used the least amount of force in the region.    http://theavtimes.com/2012/04/12/coffee-with-the-captain-recap/   Police body cams are scarily easy to hack into and manipulate, researcher finds  Luke Dormehl  Digital Trends•August 15, 2018    Nuix cybersecurity expert Josh Mitchell demonstrated how it is possible to manipulate footage from police  body cams. Mitchell’s demo used five different cameras — including Vievu, Patrol Eyes, Fire Cam, Digital Ally  and CeeSc — and showcased how these could be hacked into and potentially altered. This could include  deleting or altering footage or amending crucial metadata, including where and when footage was shot.    https://www.yahoo.com/news/police‐body‐cams‐scarily‐easy‐212958177.html  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 6 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Police body cams are scarily easy to hack into and manipulate, researcher finds www.yahoo.com Nuix cybersecurity expert Josh Mitchell has demonstrated how it is possible to hack into and potentially manipulate footage from police body cams. The really scary part? It's shockingly easy. https://www.yahoo.com/news/police‐body‐cams‐scarily‐easy‐212958177.html  Tony Ciampi   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 2:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:our water, the Bay and the Delta Dear Council Members,    I am writing to thank you for voting to endorse the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.  I think it's really  important for us to keep looking at the big picture of California's, and especially the Delta and Bay's, water  ecosystem.    Sincerely,  Virginia Smedberg  Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 4:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 4:14 PM To:roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Lauing, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James; Minor, Beth; Kleinberg, Judy; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; Jason Green; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; Alex Kobayashi; Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Micaela.Hellman-Tincher@bos.sccgov.org; VHS101@yahoo.com; WILPF.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; richard@alexanderlaw.com; Aram James; Andrew Pierce; Debra@firstpaloalto.com; Bear.ride@fprespa.org; CHamilton@da.sccgov.org; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; Goodell, Erin; Jonsen, Robert Subject:Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces Professor Roberta Ahlquist WILPF Low-Income Housing Committee Dear Professor Ahlquist: Thank you for speaking out for Palo Alto City Government accountability and transparency. I believe City of Palo Alto's Chief Transportation Official Joshuah Mello should be admonished for his poor stewardship over public need. As a quasi-public facility supported by HUD funding, Lyttons Garden Senior Communities is a type of corporation in the private sector that is backed by a branch of government that has a public mandate to provide for the needs of the public. Respectfully, -Danielle --------------------------- Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Date: Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:34 PM Subject: 5 Handicapped parking spaces To: Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Mr. Mello, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 4:39 PM 2 I would like an explanation for why these five spots have been removed: 1. Under what guidelines, 2. Who made this decision? 3. Why? Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist for the WILPF Low-Income Housing Committee From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:57 PM Subject: Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces To: Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kniss, Liz (internal)" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Minor, Beth" <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Kleinberg, Judy" <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>, Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>, Allison@padailypost.com, EmiBach@padailypost.com, Jason Green <jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com>, AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov, Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov, Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov, Alex Kobayashi <Alex.Kobayashi@sen.ca.gov>, Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org, Micaela.Hellman-Tincher@bos.sccgov.org, VHS101@yahoo.com, WILPF.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com, richard@alexanderlaw.com, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Andrew Pierce <apierce@pierceshearer.com>, Debra@firstpaloalto.com, Bear.ride@fprespa.org, CHamilton@da.sccgov.org, JRosen@dao.sccgov.org, Erin.Goodell@cityofpaloalto.org Joshuah Mello Chief Transportation Official Palo Alto's Transportation Division Mr. Mello: Don't ask me to do your job; you have the address. Handicapped must come first. This downtown Palo Alto property has, at minimum, a quasi-public nature given their Mission Statement and the Founding Documents for Lytton Gardens Senior Communities. -Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com From: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:38 PM Subject: RE: Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Ms. Martell: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 4:39 PM 3   Thank you for writing. Is this within the public right‐of‐way (on‐street parking) or in the private Lytton Gardens  parking lot?   Regards,   JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP Chief Transportation Official OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org office: 650.329.2520   fax: 650.329.2154      From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com]  Date: Mon, August 13, 2018 5:34 PM Subject: Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces cc: Lauing, Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly  <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>; Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>; Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>;  Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>   To: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 4:39 PM 4 Joshuah Mello Chief Transportation Official Palo Alto's Transportation Division Dear Mr. Mello: Why has Palo Alto's downtown Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (LG), 656 Lytton Avenue, been allowed to obliterate five (5) Handicap Parking spaces in front of their entrance? This includes paved asphalt sans parking lines, and red curbs. For decades, PAPD ticketed autos without Handicap Plaques that parked in front of LG. --Two of the five former parking spots share a LG dumpster. Together, the site of all five former parking spaces resembles an expanding entryway for LG, and add greatly to the aesthetics of their building. Curious minds want to know why FIVE downtown Handicap Zones have "vanished like a fart on the breeze". Please respond. Sincerely, -Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 15, 2018 7:16 PM To:Michael Hawkins Cc:Martineau, Catherine; Maika Horjus, Canopy; Passmore, Walter; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James; Kleinberg, Judy; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; Aram James; Jason Green; John Fredrich; Chris Payne; AlfredMan@aol.com; daniel kottke Subject:Palo Alto's beautiful old-growth trees keep disappearing ... Michael Hawkins, Program Director Palo Alto Canopy Dear Michael: I appreciate your shared concern for tree preservation. Attached find Screen Shots of this week's NEXTDOOR neighborhood online dialogue showing Palo Alto trees continue to "vanish like a fart in the breeze". --Residents are alarmed. Why are there no posted City Notices warning the public of this ongoing slaughter? Best, -Danielle ------------------------- Danielle Martell dmPaloAlto@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 7:49 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 7:49 AM 3 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 5:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 4:00 PM To:cromero@cityofepa.org Cc:lgauthier@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; epatoday@epatoday.org; sdremann@paweekly.com; drutherford@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; dprice@padailypost.com; allison@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Jonsen, Robert; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Council, City; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; ibain@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; apardini@cityofepa.org; Binder, Andrew; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Keene, James; Tony Dixon; Carnahan, David; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly Subject:PERF (Police Executive Research Forum) & COPS (Community Oriented Police Services) : Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program-Recommendations and Lessons learned......92 page article August 21, 2018 Dear City Councilmen Carlos Romero: It was good meeting you, however brief, at the East Palo Alto City Council meeting on August 8, 2018. My apologies for being so slow in sending out this article to you, re body-worn camera implementation, and related policy considerations. As I mentioned at the council meeting, former East Palo Alto Police Chief Ron Davis- played a significant part in making this article happen. Here is his letter at P-9-10 of the article: Letter from the COPS Office Director Dear Colleagues, One of the most important issues currently facing law enforcement is how to leverage new technology to improve policing services. Whether using social media to engage the community, deploying new surveillance tools to identify suspects, or using data analysis to predict future crime, police agencies around the world are implementing new technology at an unprecedented pace. Body-worn cameras, which an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting, represent one new form of technology that is significantly affecting the field of policing. Law enforcement agencies are using body- worn cameras in various ways: to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, to enhance agency transparency, to document encounters between police and the public, and to investigate and resolve complaints and officer- involved incidents. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 5:17 PM 2 Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public. Before agencies invest considerable time and money to deploy body-worn cameras, they must consider these and other important questions. The COPS Office was pleased to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to support an extensive research project that explored the numerous policy and implementation questions surrounding body- worn cameras. In September 2013, the COPS Office and PERF hosted a conference in Washington, D.C., where more than 200 law enforcement officials, scholars, representatives from federal agencies, and other experts gathered to share their experiences with body-worn cameras. The discussions from this conference, along with interviews with more than 40 police executives and a review of existing body-worn camera policies, culminated in the recommendations set forth in this publication. Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned offers practical guidance as well as a comprehensive look at the issues that body-worn cameras raise. I hope you find that the wide range of perspectives, approaches, and strategies presented in this publication are useful, whether you are developing your own body-worn camera program or simply wish to learn more about the topic. The goal of the COPS Office and PERF is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the best information possible as they explore this new technology; therefore, we encourage you to share this publication, as well as your own experiences, with other law enforcement practitioners. Sincerely, Ronald L. Davis, Director Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Aram James’ e-mail continues I hope you and your fellow council members have the opportunity to thoroughly review the PERF/COPS report, before finally deciding which are the best practices/policies, that should apply to body- worn camera use, in East Palo Alto. As an example: at the council meeting of August 8, we discussed whether police officers should be allowed to review their body-worn camera footage, before writing their police reports. Although a majority of police executives interviewed for the PERF/COPS report, expressed the view that officers should be allowed to review camera footage, before writing their report, a minority of police executives disagreed ( see page 41-42 of the report): “Other police executives, however, said that the truth—and the officer’s credibility—are better served if an officer is not permitted to review footage of an incident prior to making a statement. “In terms of the officer’s statement, what matters is the officer’s perspective at the time of the event, not what is in the video,” said Major Mark Person of the Prince George’s County (Maryland) Police Department. “That perspective is what they are going to have to testify to. If officers watch the video before making a statement, they might tailor the statement to what they see. It can cause them to second-guess themselves, which makes them seem less credible.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 5:17 PM 3 Aram James’ e-mail continues There are many other policy issues debated in the report. Should police crime victims, victims of alleged police brutality, the press, and community watchdogs- have ready access to body-worn came footage? Or, in the alternative, should the police be allowed to keep camera footage secret, unless the camera footage shows the police in a favorable light? These are all important issues that the council, the police, and the community-will have to grapple with, as we work together, to establish best community police relations. Best regards, Aram James https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/472014912134715246869.pdf City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Photo of traffic on University I had my son take this photo while we were on University at Center at 2:37pm Tuesday August 14. The traffic is coming from downtown as far as the eye can see. This is extremely common even this early in the day. Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:32 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richards <rchrds@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 12:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail Committee: proposed options for Charleston crossing Dear Sirs: I am a homeowner whose property on Monroe Drive abuts the railroad tracks. The noise from the current trains, especially the freight trains, is loud enough. An elevated track as described in Aecom’s August 7, 2018 (MCL Road Hybrid) would certainly increase the noise level. And it’s likely that passengers on an elevated train would be able to see more of the property, reducing my privacy. I strongly feel that an elevated railroad track would be detrimental to my quality of life and the value of my property. I much prefer the partially lowered railroad track described as MCR Reverse Hybrid. Best, Shan Richards City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Trish Mulvey <mulvey@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 1:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE: THANKS for your support for State Water Resources Control Board's Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan BIG HUGS & THANKS to each of you for your unanimous support vote last night, and special thanks to whoever realized  that this item should not be on the consent item calendar.  trish    From: Trish Mulvey [mailto:mulvey@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:54 AM To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: support for State Water Resources Control Board's Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members, Please add this note to your collection of community requests urging you to deny the City staff recommendation and instead strongly support the State Water Board’s well-researched and balanced proposed Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. Thanks for your attention to this request. Trish Mulvey 527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:06 PM To:paloaltofreepress Cc:Aram James; swagstaffe; jrosen; Perron, Zachary; Kilpatrick, Brad; Council, City; Lee, Craig; michael gennaco; Kan, Michael; Jonsen, Robert; dcbertini; Kniss, Liz (internal); stevendlee; HRC; gkirby; Keene, James; mdiaz; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; council; myraw; molly o'neal; Stump, Molly; Binder, Andrew; Cullen, Charles; citycouncil; ibain; fred124c41; Bains, Paul; dennis r burns; Constantino, Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; roberta ahlquist; nklippen@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; sscott; mharris; rpichon; jsylva@scscourt.org; aflint@scscourt.org Subject:Re: An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his misconduct was kept secret in court for years I'm on. How do we get that simple fix you recommend so persuasively? Stephanie From: "paloaltofreepress" <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> To: "Aram James" <abjpd1@gmail.com> Cc: "swagstaffe" <swagstaffe@smcgov.org>, "jrosen" <jrosen@da.sccgov.org>, "zachary perron" <zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, "brad kilpatrick" <brad.kilpatrick@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "craig lee" <craig.lee@cityofpaloalto.org>, "michael gennaco" <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>, "michael kan" <michael.kan@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Robert Jonsen" <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, "dcbertini" <dcbertini@menlopark.org>, "liz kniss" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>, "stevendlee" <stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu>, "hrc" <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, "gkirby" <gkirby@redwoodcity.org>, "james keene" <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, "mdiaz" <mdiaz@redwoodcity.org>, "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "council" <council@redwoodcity.org>, "myraw" <myraw@smcba.org>, "molly o'neal" <molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org>, "molly stump" <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Andrew Binder" <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Charles Cullen" <Charles.Cullen@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "citycouncil" <citycouncil@menlopark.org>, "ibain" <ibain@redwoodcity.org>, "fred124c41" <fred124c41@gmail.com>, "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>, "Paul Bains" <pbains7@projectwehope.com>, "dennis r burns" <dennis.r.burns@gmail.com>, "mary constantino" <mary.constantino@cityofpaloalto.org>, "minka vanderzwaag" <minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>, "roberta ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, nklippen@scscourt.org, dryan@scscourt.org, bwalsh@scscourt.org, "sscott" <sscott@scscourt.org>, "mharris" <mharris@scscourt.org>, "rpichon" <rpichon@scscourt.org>, jsylva@scscourt.org, aflint@scscourt.org Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2018 11:09:43 AM Subject: Re: An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his misconduct was kept secret in court for years A simple fix would be the elimination of the police officers special bill of rights: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers%27_Bill_of_Rights City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 2 You wont find anyone, anyone outside of law enforcement willing to discuss to hot topic... police officers are notoriously known to receive unprecedented witness protection... by DA’s. Secondly, the first rule of discover asked in any criminal case involving the police? Prior misconduct. This should be explored first, during Pre-Trial Conference...and should be reviewed and confirmed independently.... Unfortunately, police are known to lie cheat and steal at the cost of being innocence. Including, but far from limited, exculpatory evidence withheld. Mark Sent from my iPad On Aug 10, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-brady-list-secrecy-court-20180809- htmlstory.html An L.A. County deputy faked evidence. Here's how his misconduct was kept secret in court for years They were at the tail end of their overnight shift when they spotted Gerald Simmons near a vacant lot in Inglewood. The two Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies said they saw the 43-year-old toss a plastic baggie of rock cocaine to the ground. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 3 Their testimony would become the backbone of the 2009 criminal case against Simmons. After a six-day trial, the verdict was swift. Guilty. But jurors made their decision without knowing a crucial detail. Jose Ovalle, one of the deputies who also booked the evidence, had been suspended five years earlier for pouring taco sauce on a shirt to mimic blood in a criminal case. He nearly lost his job. Ovalle’s past was kept secret for years from prosecutors, judges, defendants and jurors, even though he was a potential witness in hundreds of criminal cases that relied on his credibility, according to a Times investigation. The deputy took the stand in 31 cases before the district attorney’s office found out about his misconduct. Once his credibility came into question, prosecutors offered some career criminals generous plea deals in pending cases or dropped charges altogether. Some went on to commit serious crimes. Ovalle is not an isolated example. Misconduct by law enforcement officers who testify in court is routinely kept hidden by California’s police privacy laws. The U.S. Supreme Court requires prosecutors to inform criminal defendants about an officer’s wrongdoing — but the state’s laws are so strict that prosecutors cannot directly access the personnel files of their own police witnesses. Instead, California puts the burden on defendants to prove to a judge that an officer’s record is relevant. Times reporters reviewed documents from hundreds of criminal cases in which the district attorney’s office identified Ovalle as a potential witness after he was caught faking the bloody evidence in 2003. Few defendants tried to obtain information about Ovalle’s past. A handful of those who did weren’t given information about the deputy’s discipline. Judges never gave them a public explanation for why it wouldn’t have been relevant. By the time the district attorney’s office learned about Ovalle’s misconduct, he had been a potential witness against 312 defendants. More than 230 were convicted. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 4 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 5 The California Supreme Court will decide whether law enforcement agencies can tell prosecutors if a police witness has a record of serious discipline. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images A Times investigation last year identified Ovalle and others on a secret Sheriff’s Department list of deputies whose misconduct included falsely testifying in court, pulling over a motorist and receiving oral sex from her while on patrol, and tipping off a drug dealer’s girlfriend about a narcotics bust. Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell wanted to disclose the so-called Brady list of about 300 officers to prosecutors, but the deputies union went to court to stop him. The state’s Supreme Court will soon decide whether McDonnell and other law enforcement agencies can tell prosecutors if a police witness has a record of serious discipline. An appellate court has ruled they cannot. Ovalle now works as a sergeant in the Sheriff’s Department’s Century station in Lynwood. Last year, he was paid $240,000 in salary, overtime and other earnings. When reached by The Times for comment, Ovalle said: “I don’t understand why the L.A. Times is so interested about me.” He declined to comment further and asked not to be contacted again. ‘It was stupidity’ Ovalle’s troubles began in August 2003. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 6 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 7 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Jose Ovalle. (L.A. County Sheriff's Department) Several gang members at the Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic had slashed an inmate’s neck and head with razor blades. A 26-year-old deputy with just three years on the job, Ovalle was responsible for collecting the evidence and writing the incident report. When he realized a bloody shirt from one of the suspects had gone missing, Ovalle took a clean one from the jail laundry, topped it with taco sauce and took a photo, according to court and law enforcement records. A custody assistant watching Ovalle warned him not to do it, but the deputy went ahead and booked the photograph into evidence. The custody assistant reported him to a supervisor, according to court records. Confronted by sheriff’s investigators, Ovalle confessed. “It was stupidity now that I look back on it,” he told the investigators, according to a transcript of his interview obtained by The Times. “This uniform means everything to me, this badge and gun, it’s my life. … I’m embarrassed.” Sheriff’s Department officials told Ovalle he would be fired but then relented, noting that he had cooperated with investigators and accepted responsibility, according to internal documents. Ovalle was instead handed a 30-day suspension. He was ordered to serve 10 of those days and the remainder only if he committed a similar offense within the next five years. In testimony he gave years later, Ovalle blamed poor training for his conduct and downplayed the significance of what he had done, insisting he hadn’t fabricated evidence because the bloody shirt had once existed. “I don’t consider myself a liar,” he said. The Sheriff’s Department never notified the district attorney’s office about Ovalle’s actions to see if he should be charged with a crime, according to law enforcement records. As a result, prosecutors handling cases in which Ovalle was involved had no way of knowing about his past actions. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 8 ‘Trying to hide misconduct’ Two years after his suspension, Ovalle was transferred to the Sheriff’s Department’s Lennox station in South Los Angeles, where he made arrests for drug possession, theft and assault and later testified in court. Defendants who faced him had only one method of possibly learning about his misconduct, a procedure that is itself cloaked in secrecy. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 9 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 9:17 AM 10 "They are trying to hide misconduct, and everyone should be against it," said David Kanuth, a former Los Angeles County public defender, regarding California's police privacy laws. Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times Under California’s so-called Pitchess laws, defendants can ask a judge to examine an officer’s personnel records for allegations of excessive force, dishonesty, theft or other acts of “moral turpitude.” Few go through the trouble. By the spring of 2008, Ovalle had been listed by prosecutors as a potential witness against 125 defendants. Only five tried to delve into Ovalle’s background, according to a review of court records. If a defendant’s Pitchess motion is granted, a representative from the officer’s law enforcement agency meets with the judge in private to go over relevant complaints. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney is allowed in the room. If a judge decides to turn over anything, it is usually only the name and contact information of someone who made a complaint against the officer within the last five years. It is then up to the defense attorney to figure out what happened. Supporters say the Pitchess laws prevent accused criminals from fishing for information about police witnesses that is irrelevant in their cases. David E. Mastagni, a Sacramento-based attorney who represents police unions, said most defendants don’t file Pitchess motions because “in the vast majority of cases, the officer’s credibility is not an issue.” If an officer has a history of dishonesty, he said, a judge will almost always disclose it through Pitchess. “It’s a pretty perfect balancing,” he said. But defense lawyers complain that the laws make it difficult for people facing criminal charges to ask for the information. Many of their jailed clients, they say, don’t want to spend weeks or months trying to find out whether a law enforcement witness has a history of complaints, especially if they could accept a plea deal that would speed up their release. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 9:27 PM To:Palo Alto Free Press Cc:dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; Kilpatrick, Brad; Carnahan, David; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; HRC; Council, City; Minor, Beth; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Keene, James; council@redwoodcity.org; ibain@redwoodcity.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Binder, Andrew; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Tony Dixon; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.com; apardini@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; apierce@pierceshearer.com; Stump, Molly; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; aflint@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org; Perron, Zachary; Lee, Craig; Kan, Michael; allison@padailypost.com; Cullen, Charles; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Bains, Paul; dprice@padailypost.com; denkafer1@yahoo.com; emibach@padailypost.com; tom.dubois@gmail.com Subject:Re: Bid to open California's secret police misconduct files takes major step forward Hi Mark,    Sadly the powerful police lobbies, here in California, continue to wage a war against full transparency of police records,  body‐worn camera footage, taser investigative reports, etc.,    As long as law enforcement continues to fight the full transparency that is required of other public employees‐ communities, particular the poor‐and communities of color —will continue to distrust the police —all to the determent  of a truly robust, vibrant and enlightened democracy.     Progressive members of law enforcement acknowledge all of the above. Unfortunately the progressive members of law  enforcement are greatly out numbered by those in law enforcement that trace their heritage and mentality‐to the slave‐ catcher era. This bill, if passed ‐will be a very very small step in holding law enforcement to the same standard of  accountability‐ that applies to other public employees. Much more work is necessary if law enforcement is to gain the  trust of the people of this state.     Best regards,    Aram    P.S. There was a horrific death by Taser in Redwood City, on Tuesday,  August 14, 2018. The Daily Post ran an article ‐ front page ‐August 15. The article‐that gave only brief details‐describes 4 RWC police officers struggling to arrest a large  suspect ‐with an apparent mental heath history‐known to the RWC police. Despite the known risk of tasering an  individual in such a circumstances‐the police‐ apparently ignored all of the warnings listed by the manufacturer, Axon,  formerly known as Taser International ‐and in essence sentenced this man to execution by Taser ‐without a trial. I  predict that a wrong death suit will be brought against Redwood City ‐which will result in huge financial judgment,  against the city. I will keep you updated on the case.     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:19 AM 2 P.S.S. The views expressed above are those of the writer, Aram James     > On Aug 17, 2018, at 8:09 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  >   > Hi Mark,  > I’m not h  >   > Sent from my iPhone  >   >> On Aug 17, 2018, at 7:43 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:  >>   >> I hope the impossibility becomes the reality... With the passage of this bill, transparency and accountability will no  longer become the shadow in which police hide....  >>   >>   >> Mark Petersen‐Perez  >> Editor: Palo Alto Free Press  >> Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮  >>   >>   >> Sent from my iPad  >>   >>> On Aug 16, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  >>>   >>> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la‐pol‐ca‐police‐records‐bill‐advanc  >>> es‐20180816‐story.html?outputType=amp  >>>   >>>   >>> Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 9:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gina Goodhill <ggoodhill@tesla.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 9:46 AM To:Council, City Cc:Press Subject:Re: Consumer Complaint regarding Tesla/Solar City Dear Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers,     We are responding to Ms. Mehta’s email below in which she contends that her $500 deposit is refundable because she  did not proceed with the site survey.      By way of background, Mr. Satish Bisht signed the Solar Purchase Agreement associated with the address that Ms.  Mehta provided Tesla Energy on March 7, 2018. Mr. Bisht subsequently requested to postpone his site survey on April  4th, 2018 and first requested a refund of his deposit on May 18, 2018. Pursuant to Mr. Bisht’s Purchase Agreement, he  had ten (10) business days after signing to cancel the Agreement at no cost to him. As confirmed by the aforementioned  timeline, Mr. Bisht did not request to cancel his Agreement within this explicit cancellation period. As such, Mr. Bisht is  not entitled to a refund of his deposit, as was first communicated to him back on May 18th.       Despite the Agreement’s unambiguous cancellation timeframe, Tesla Energy agrees to refund Mr. Bisht’s $500 deposit  as a gesture of good customer service. Tesla Energy now considers this matter closed.     Please let me know if you have any questions.  Gina Goodhill | Sr. Policy Associate | Business Development and Policy p 213.447.8583 | ggoodhill@tesla.com    The content of this message is the proprietary and confidential property of Tesla Motors, and should be treated as such. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please delete this message from your computer system and notify me immediately by reply e-mail. Any unauthorized use or distribution of the content of this message is prohibited. Thank you.      Please consider the environment before printing this email.       From: Apurva Mehta <mehta.apurva@gmail.com>  Date: Friday, August 17, 2018 at 11:00 AM  To: "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Press <press@tesla.com>  Subject: Consumer Complaint regarding Tesla/Solar City     To  Honorable Members of the Mayor and City Council of Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 9:56 AM 2    Regarding: Consumer Complaint     Dear Members,     I contacted Tesla for a Solar System Installation in my home in San Jose. On an initial consultation, they  charged a refundable $500 for the site survey that was to happen at a future date. We later decided to  not proceed and so the site survey never happened and requested for the refund back.     It's been more than 5 months and I have been bounced between the Sales Engineer and the Support  Department.      I would really appreciate if the City Council of Palo Alto where Tesla is Headquartered can help or  provide me with guidance with the next steps.     Thanks  Apurva Mehta        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:45 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 6:10 AM To:aram james; bjohnson@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz (external); sdremann@paweekly.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com; Keith, Claudia Subject:Re: First community meeting on Cubberley set for October Great comment Aram..... Unfortunately, the Weekly has decided to ban our participation and comments. Stating alleged unknown violations....but, as you know, their record on spinning and censorship is undisputed. Saludo, Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto FREE Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:45 AM 2 Sent from my iPad > On Aug 21, 2018, at 3:09 PM, aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> wrote: > > Mark, > See my comments towards end of comments -sorry for some typos....love if you comment —-I remember your photojournalism article on Cub -well done. Maybe you can post that piece. > Aram > > https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&t=38832#.W3x-qoJOThw.mailto > > > Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Linhai Qiu <lqiu@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 5:44 PM To:Scharff, Greg; Fine, Adrian Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: From Charleston Meadow residents Thank you all! We are looking forward to seeing these options go off the table soon. On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Greg Scharff <gregscharff@aol.com> wrote: I don’t support the options, that will raise the rails. I expect that we will dispatch of them soon. Greg Sent from my iPhone On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thank you Linhai Adrian On Aug 20, 2018, at 11:40 PM, Linhai Qiu <lqiu@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote: Hi Cory, Greg, Lydia, Adrian, I am a resident living in the Charleston Meadow area with my family. We are very surprised to learn that the options that will raise the rails (including MCL) are still on the table, given our community is so against it. Here is why we are so against it. With the current height of the train tracks, we can already see through the windows of the caltrains in our backyard and even in the living room. We cannot imagine if the train tracks are raised another 14 feet (almost twice as high as our fence). The question now is not how it will impact the privacy of the caltrain neighbor residents. From our direct experience (before seeing any 3D simulation), we can testify that there will be no privacy at all. Let's forget about the noise (especially the freight trains) for a moment. Just think about trains passing over the head every day. Just think about that kind of feeling and how much stress that will cause "every" day. People have been so anxious about the decisions on your hands that they cannot even fall asleep sometimes. For us it is not just discussion and analysis, it is our life, daily life! We have been keeping mentioning the constraints, but I think no elevation of the rails should be the most basic constraint. (I agree with one point from one of you that we should factor in the cost of all the necessary mitigation such as insulation, sight blocking, etc. into the cost analysis, although I also think much of the long-term damage caused by elevation will be so costly that can't even be measured.) Thanks. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kniss, Liz (internal) Sent:Wednesday, August 22, 2018 10:20 AM To:Cheryl Lilienstein Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Thank you Thanks, Cheryl!   Liz    > On Aug 21, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> wrote:  >   > Dear City Council,  > Please accept my gratitude for standing up for the wildlife, the rivers, and the beauty of California. Your vote to  support the Bay Delta Plan was the right one, and it’s particularly heartening to see a 9‐0 vote on this issue. It’s so  important to us all.  > Sincerely,  > Cheryl Lilienstein  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 7:43 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Broadwell <peter@plasm.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 9:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding the vote on the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan City Council folk ‐    I was in the chambers last night for the first half of the discussion about "Item #5", formerly on the consent calendar  about the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.  Fate made it so I had to leave before most the public members got a chance to speak.  By the time I could tune in to the KZSU live broadcast you were onto other agenda items so I missed some points of view  and the vote.    Just learned you all vote 9:0 to go with the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan that will give the fish a fighting chance!   I couldn't be happier.  You have restored a bit of my faith in government bodies.    Thank you!    ;;peter ‐ Peter Broadwell,2325 Cornell Street, Palo Alto      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 7:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Road Sharing I am writing to urge you to use your influence with residents and the SVBC and Stanford to encourage bicyclists to honor the rules of the road. This may be as simple as educating the cycling community about what a cyclist’s obligations are. I leave my car at home when I can, availing myself of ride-sharing, use of the Embarcadero and Tech shuttles, cycling, and walking. When I am on the Oregon bike/pedestrian overpass or in the Cal Ave tunnel I marvel at how many cyclists ignore the WALK YOUR BIKE and DISMOUNT ZONE signs. And I am convinced that cyclists think STOP signs apply only to cars, trucks, and motorcycles. One intersection that is ripe for an accident is California/Columbia. I have seen many cyclists leaving the new Stanford housing development zoom right past the STOP sign as though it wasn’t there. I presume that residents of Stanford housing can read, so can only conclude that they choose to ignore the sign. It’s clear that the transit behavior you want to drive (pardon the pun) is that people not drive. The last few times I have gone out on my bike I have found myself thinking that I should have driven because it is safer. Promoting bicycling has got to include promoting bicycle safety and enforcing the rules. A few tickets here and there might do the trick. Please do what you can. Thank you. Annette Portello Ross City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 4:41 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Janine Bisharat <janine@karunaadvisors.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 3:19 PM To:Council, City Cc:Beacom, Becky; Selora Albin; Fred Bisharat Subject:Running through our stop sign Dear Council Members:    I am a CPA and work at home a few days a week.  I have lived at 621 Hawthorne Avenue for 25 years now and the  cars running through our stop sign on Byron and Hawthorne has increased to about 3 cars out of 10 that I watch  each day.  I have meetings here and my employees are shocked to watch how many cars blow through our stop sign  driving on Hawthorne crossing Byron to get to Middlefield. I have copied my neighbors because they are also aware  of this.    I have called the police and talked with them about coming out but I know that they are too busy to enforce on that  side.  They are on our street in the morning ticketing the illegal right turn from middlefield onto our street between 7  – 10 a.m.    I hope you can please figure out what to do about this as it is only a matter of time when one of our seniors from the  neighborhood doesn’t make it fast enough to beat the speeding cars.  Next stop is the Palo Alto Weekly.    Thanks  Janine        Janine Bisharat, Principal      1550 El Camino Real, Suite 250  Menlo Park, CA 94025  Phone: 650‐328‐2758| Cell: 650‐248‐1335  janine@karunaadvisors.com| www.karunaadvisors.com/    This email and any attachments may contain private, confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended  recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately delete this email and any attachments.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 3:14 PM To:rabrica@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; drutherford@cityofepa.org; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; allison@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com; apardini@cityofepa.org; mbuell@cityofepa.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; myraw@smcba.org; Jonsen, Robert; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Keene, James; ibain@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com; Kilpatrick, Brad; Lee, Craig; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; bwalsh@scscourt.org; sdremann@paweekly.com; dryan@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; swagstaffe@co.sanmateo.ca.us; Minor, Beth; Bains, Paul; fields.randal@gmail.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Holman, Karen; nklippen@scscourt.org; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; judyblueeyes1@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary Cc:Carnahan, David; Tony Dixon; tom.dubois@gmail.com Subject:Shock Tactics: Inside the Taser, the weapon that transformed policing August 19, 2018 Dear East Palo Alto City Council members et al: Over the next few weeks I will be sending you a number of articles on the extraordinary danger Tasers pose to our communities . The first article I am sending you is the award winning- 7 part series- published by Reuters. The series was 18 months in the preparation stage and the seven articles stretch from August 2017- February 2018. Some of the separate articles are interactive and will allow you to pinpoint Taser related deaths-now at 1005 deaths and climbing -in different states, cities, etc...I consider this series to be extraordinarily well researched and documented . But I will leave it up to each of you- to decide for yourself the quality of the series. Best regards, Aram B. James State-bar # 80215 415-370-5056 P.S. I will send out the 7th part of the series in a separate e-mail https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/usa-taser/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 4:01 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Beth Bondel <bondel585@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 3:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Small business difficulties Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members:    I am writing to let you know how difficult it is to be a small business owner in Palo Alto. I am a psychologist  and have  had my office in 550 Hamilton for 31 years. When it came time to renew my lease this spring, the management company  would only offer me a 4 month lease, not extendable, at double the rate I am currently paying. Every lease that is  expiring in the building is only being extended for one year. Each time a lease ends, the walls of the space are removed  and the interior becomes one large room  suitable for high tech workers. What this means is that a building that had  many individual offices occupied by accountants, lawyers and mental health professionals is being converted to hi tech  use . The occupancy of the building is increased and there is no place for small business owners to go in Palo Alto  because entities like Amazon and Palentir can pay so much more rent. What is puzzling to me as well is that the building  directory does not reflect the changes in tenancy. Names of tenants who have left long ago remain on the directory.    What could not be accomplished from the outside is taking place from within. The owners of 550 were not allowed to  tear down the building and rebuild because of neighborhood objection. Nevertheless, the tenancy is being transformed  and the occupancy substantially increased. In the same way the City is considering how to help renters who are being  evicted, I would ask that the question of how to support the small business owner in Palo Alto become a matter the  Council addresses.    Sincerely,    Beth Rosenthal, PhD    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Julianne Frizzell <julianneasla@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 12:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:State BAy Delta Plan For the members of the CPA City Council, I send my heartfelt thanks for the eloquent and thoughtful comments that many of you made in support of the State Water Resources Control Board Bay Delta Plan. I hope that our CPA unanimous vote for the resolution in support of the Plan will stimulate other communities to have the courage to follow suit. Regards to all Julianne Frizzell Julianne Adams Frizzell / ASLA julianneasla@sonic.net 650-325-0905 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 5:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Collacchi <pjcoll@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support Bay Delta Resolution Mayor Kniss and Council Members,    Thank you for your unanimous support for the undiluted Bay‐Delta Plan as proposed by the State Water Board.  The  sincerity of your voice and action dispels the empty rhetoric of "voluntary settlement" to support a fairer and saner  distribution of water in California.  The Resolution is a breath of fresh air, and it is heartfelt.     Thank you.    Paul Collacchi  Redwood City, CA  Virus-free. www.avast.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:29 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 18, 2018 9:02 PM To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; ibain@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; dcbertini@menlopark.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Keene, James; myraw@smcba.org; Council, City; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; apardini@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:Tasers 1042 dead and counting-see Reuters series interactive tracker for confirmation .....cites pay high cost for Taser deaths ..manufacturer’s warnings —now at 4500 words —7-8 page —often ignored by police officers due to lack of training—payout from... Attachments:Aram James (DJ-1-12-18).pdf Assistant Chief Gary Kerry: As promised, I am continuing to send out relevant articles re the extraordinary risk of death and injuries caused by Tasers. I will share this piece, No excuse for Tasers in our jails with you and other members of the Redwood City government—et al: I request you and others read the piece, and the decide for yourselves whether its past time we ban Tasers. Other relevant Taser related articles will follow in the near future. Best regards, Aram James Sent from my iPhone WS ANGELES & SAN FRANCISCO ~ail y df ourrrgJ FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 2018 There's no excuse for laser use in our jails By Aram James and Richard Konda W atchdogs across ~e country are orgamz- ing to oppose police practices that run contrary to community values and our con- stitutional rights. In Santa Clara County in the spring of 2017, Sheriff Laurie Smith, a longtime opponent of Tasers, in a surpris- ing shift of policy, announced her plan to introduce Tasers into the Santa Clara County jails. Local civil rights organizations immediate] y began organizing to resist the sheriff's call for Tasers. New YOf'k Times News Service Taser, the Weapon that Trans- formed Policing") and the Bar Association of San Francisco. Taser-Related Deaths and Lit- One of our first strategies was igation to ensure that members of the Critically important to con- community were as fully in-vincing our sheriff of the inap- formed as possible regarding the propriateness of bringing Tasers risks that Tasers pose to human to the jails is Reuter's recent life. We reviewed materials on finding that the death toll associ- Tasers and got ourselves cur-ated with Tasers is substantially rent on the nuances of the issue. more than previously reported by Next, we scheduled meetings mainstream civil rights organiza- over a seven-month period with tions like Amnesty Intemation- key elected and non-elected of-al. Using rigorous journalistic ficials who we felt could influ-standards, Reuters documented ence the sheriff's decision. This 1,005 deaths related to Taser use included members of the Santa by law enforcement. Clara County Board of Supervi-In addition, Reuters complet- sors who ultimately will vote to ed a thorough examination of the decide whether the sheriff will monies paid out by cities across be allowed to purchase Tasers. the country in Taser related lit- We also met with the elected igation. Reuters identified and Santa Clara County district at-reviewed 442 wrongful death tomey, the Santa Clara County lawsuits in which Tasers were public defender and the county a factor that may have caused counsel. And most importantly, death. "In 120 of the 442 cases we met with the sheriff and her or 27%, the Taser was the only staff to open up a dialogue on force alleged in the claim; in the this critical issue. remaining 322 cases, the stun Here are some of the argu-guns were alleged to have been ments and information we pro-part of a broader array of police vided much of which came from force. More than three-fifths of a recent fivepart series by Reu-the 366 of the concluded law- ters ("Shock Tactics: Inside the suits against governments, or 232, resulted in judgments or settlements for the plaintiffs: 220 settlements and 12 judg- ments. Reuters was able to de- termine payouts in 193 cases, totaling $172 million paid by cit- ies and their insurers. That dol- lar figure does not include three dozen cases in which settlements remained confidential or were unavailable." (Emphasis added.) These findings regarding the cost of litigation should trouble any law enforcement agency, city or county contemplating the purchase of Tasers. at all after having reviewed the extensive warnings. Ed Davis, former Boston police chief from 2006-2013, in ultimately declin- ing to purchase Tasers for his department said the following: The warnings "made the weapon impractical to use, and it gave a lot of us the impression that we weren't getting the full story. I didn't want to take the risk. The potential litigation costs abso- lutely were a factor." The tragic death of Everette Howard, a young African-Amer- ican student, is a case examined in the Reuter's series. One Taser Taser Warnings blast by University of Cincinna- Historically the manufactur-ti police officer Richard Haas, a er had very few warnings re-certified Taser instructor, result- garding the safety of its weap-ed in Everette Howard's death. on. Increasingly and in order "Haas fired his stun gun. One to shift liability to cities and electrified dart hit below How- police departments, Taser now ard's lower left chest, the other has a 4,500-word, seven-page near his waist. The 18 year-old warning. The warning advises collapsed, unconscious, and was users not to deploy the Taser in pronounced dead at the hospi- the area of the face, eyes, neck, tal." Haas subsequently said, "I chest, heart and the genitals. And did not in my wildest dreams ex- not to Taser a variety of popula-pect this kid to die." tions including the frail, mental-As part of his role as a certified ly ill, pregnant women and those Taser trainer, Haas acknowledged with heart problems. By warning that he had studied the Taser police departments regarding safety warnings over a 10-year the risk of death and serious period and noted that they had injury when a Taser is improp-become more complex over the erly used, the manufacturer has years. Ironically, the Taser blast effectively shifted liability from that killed Everette Howard was itself to police departments and the first time Haas had deployed municipalities. a Taser in the field. He ultimate- Reuters also explored in detail ly concluded, "it seemed like it the progression of Taser warn-was getting harder and harder to ings that includes a comprehen-use the Taser." The University of sive interactive guide. Cincinnati ultimately settled the The progression of increasing-Howard's family wrongful death ly restrictive warnings issued by lawsuit for $2 million. Taser was Taser has led some police agen-not sued in the matter. cies to either shelve Tasers all In another case explored by together or not to purchase them Reuters, Linwood Lambert was tasered some 20 times by South ports 47% efficacy, but LAPD Boston, Virginia, police officers. far exceeds the size of SFPD. He died. There was substantial The OPD which is closer in evidence that the three officers involved ignored the manufac- turer's warning regarding the risk of repeatedly tasering vic- tims. In addition, the officers ig- nored other warnings issued by the manufacturer. Under oath at a deposition, one of three offi- cers involved, Corporal Tiffany Bratton, acknowledged that she was aware of the manufacturer's warnings. In a chilling statement, she said, "If I read and abided by every single warning ... I would not Taser anyone." Catch-22 More and more attention is being paid by commentators to the fact that the use of Tasers is a Catch-22. Failure by police de- partments to follow closely the ever growing restrictions on the use ofTasers issued by the manu- facturer has resulted in unneces- sary deaths and a huge increase in the costs of litigation borne by municipalities. On the other hand, where police departments are closely complying with the manufacturer's complex warn- ings, they are finding it increas- ingly impractical to use Tasers. The Oakland Police Department has over 700 police officers on their force, all are armed with Tasers. The Bar Association of San Francisco Criminal Jus- tice Task Force, Committee on size to the SFPD, reported that in 2015 Tasers were deployed on just 37 occasions and 32 times in 2016. Oakland reported for each year, the efficacy was 50%." Other studies have con- firmed that where warnings are complied with the use of Tasers drops dramatically. Similarly, numerous studies have con- firmed that Tasers have an unac- ceptably high failure rate putting both the officers and intended victim at risk. Moreover, Tasers are not effec- tive. Michael Leonesio, a retired Oakland peace officer, provided answers to questions posed by the Bar Association of San Fran- cisco. "Given the warnings is- sued by Taser International, does this diminish the weapon's effi- cacy and/or circumstances other- wise warranting Taser use[?] ... Answer: The latest manufacturer warnings and trainings, as well as the Courts and current case law decisions, have absolutely limited the circumstances when a TASER, can and/or, should be used. Combine this with the fact that the new generation weap- ons are generating only half the electrical output of the previous generations, and I question the current weapons' ability for con- sistent, reliable, subject incapac- itation." Tasers contacted the Oakland Worth the Cost? Police Department to determine how frequently Tasers were de- ployed. "To help answer some of the questions, the BASF also reached out to the Oakland Po- lice Department (OPD) to deter- mine how often Tasers are used, and how often they are effective. It is well known that LAPD re- In June 2017, Taser expert Mi- chael Leonesio, was called as an expert witness before the San Francisco Police Commission on the potential costs of outfitting all members of the SFPD with Tasers. ''During his testimony, he estimated the first year in costs to San Francisco at $8,000 to $10,000 per officer which in- eluded the purchase price, main- tenance, training and oversight. Assuming a department size of 2,200 officers, the cost is be- tween $17.6 million and $22 million." Clearly, the sheriff and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors need to consider the cost factors raised above before expending millions of tax payer dollars on a weapon that is in- creasingly seen as impractical to use. Final Argument Tasers kill on the average of one person per week in the Unit- ed States. According to the Re- uters series, nine out of 10 who die are unarmed. Tasers are un- safe to use in jails because of the substantial risk of injury or death to both inmates and correction officers. The strongest single piece of evidence of this lack of safety is the 1,005 Taser related deaths reported in the Reuters fivepart series on Tasers. Equally powerful evidence of why Tasers should be banned is the ever growing list of restrictions/warn- ings issued by the manufacturer themselves regarding the serious risks of injury and death related to the use of Tasers. The millions that would be spent in arming the correctional officers in the jails with Tasers would be better spent on hiring more and better trained correc- tional officers. Finally, given the recommendations of the Santa Clara County Blue Ribbon Com- mission on Improving Custody Operations, the purchase and use of Tasers in the jails runs counter to the community's loud and re- peated calls for a more humane approach to incarceration. Call to Action When your community is faced with a questionable police practice be it the use of Tasers, inhumane jail conditions, unconstitutional surveillance tactics, racially dis- criminatory police enforcement; be confident that there is a way to organize your community to ef- fectively challenge these issues. Meet early and often with the community and with your local elected officials. Provide them with the necessary information to fully educate them on the is- sues. Call on your local district attorney, who is the chief, law en- forcement officer in every com- munity, to support your efforts to challenge and end police practic- es that diminish public trust for local law enforcement. Remem- ber police practices are not some obscure body of knowledge that we the community need sit back and passively accept. We can in fact make a difference. Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County deputy public de- fender, a member of CJA and a co-founder of the Albert Cobar- rubias Justice Project (ACJP), a grassroots legal advocacy orga- nization located in San Jose. Richard Konda is an attor- ney and executive director of the Asian Law Alliance and the Chairperson of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA). Konda and James have challenged the use of Tasers by law enforcement for more than a decade. Reprinted with permission from the Daily Journal. ©2018 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved Reprinted by ReprintPros 949-702-5390. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 11:31 PM To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; council@redwoodcity.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Council, City; dcbertini@menlopark.org; ibain@redwoodcity.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; myraw@smcba.org; nklippen@scscourt.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; stephanie@dslextreme.com; Keene, James; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; Perron, Zachary; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; dprice@padailypost.com; Binder, Andrew; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Minor, Beth; Carnahan, David; sscott@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; emibach@padailypost.com; allison@padailypost.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; bunnychiba@icloud.com; Lewis. james Subject:Tasers extraordinarily dangerous -the death toll continues to grow—1042 and climbing -almost all unarmed people of color and the poor ...... August 17, 2018 Dear Assistant Chief Garry Kirby: In light of the recent, August 13, 2018, death of a RWC resident, Ramsey Saad, after being tasered by a yet to be named member of your department- I am requesting that you—and members of your staff- read the below linked to article: No Excuse for Tasers in our Jails. The article was co-written by Aram James & Richard Konda. I will also share the piece with members of the RWC city council and your city manager. I am hopeful that once you have read the piece( and the Reuters 7 part series on the danger of Tasers) that you will strongly and consciously consider urging your department to shelve Tasers permanently. Sincerely, Aram James State-bar # 80215 P.S. in the next few days I will send you and the city council other articles on the taser issue. http://ccin.menlopark.org/att-17785/Aram_James__DJ-1-12-18_.pdf Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Martin Gothberg <martin.gothberg@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 7:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank You All ...for finding the courage to be the first city in the SFPUC/BAWSCA scheme to break from the herd and endorse the Bay Delta Plan! I am so impressed with you all. I live in Santa Clara but I volunteer on weekends in Palo Alto along the San Francisquito Creek. I do so because of Palo Alto's legendary concern for the environment writ large and the fact that my local creek is fenced off and lined with concrete. Thank you all! Martin Gothberg 2159 King Ct. Santa Clara, CA 95051 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:36 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sue Purdy Pelosi <sueppr@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 20, 2018 11:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for a great decision on water rights! Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible. Dalai Lama https://www.linkedin.com/in/suepurdypelosi/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Hank Edson <hank.edson@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 1:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for endorsing the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Dear City Council, Thank you for listening to feedback from your constituency asking for due process and an opportunity to be heard on the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, and thank you for then listening to what people had to say in favor of it and in opposition to the alternative plan that would only pursue the same ineffectual course taken since 1995 during which fish populations have greatly fallen. I believe the people of Palo Alto are committed to supporting a longterm vision that uses the sophistication of our community to design and implement ecologically sustainable plans at every level of civic planning. Tonight you've earned the praise of this community! Sincerely, Hank Edson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gerald Hunt <gwhunt97@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 12:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank You for supporting the Bay Delta Plan Importance:High   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Virginia Tincher <vatincher@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 7:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank You for Your Support of the Bay Delta Water Quality Plan Dear Palo Alto City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to have a public discussion about the updates to the Bay Delta Water Quality Plan. Thank you for your unanimous support of the California State Water Resources Control Board’s proposed changes to the December 13, 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Given the politicization of the plan it was impressive how you focused on the facts and the opportunity to partially restore the ecosystem knowing we can also have a reliable water supply. It is my hope that other cities will follow your lead. I was also impressed by how many council members mentioned Palo Alto’s focus on using recycled water. That will go a long way toward reducing use of potable water. Regards, Virginia Tincher 879 Garland Drive Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 2:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you for your thoughtful responses Dear City Council Members, I was at last night's City Council Meeting, and I was so impressed with how thoroughly you had prepared for the tasks before you. Your questions and statements were so thoughtful and well informed. Thank you for listening to all sides of the Bay Delta Plan and then for voting to send a letter to the State Water Control Board giving them your support on the plan to protect the delta. "This Is What Democracy Looks Like." Sincerely, Annette Isaacson 2550 Webster St Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 9:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you Dear City Council,  Please accept my gratitude for standing up for the wildlife, the rivers, and the beauty of California. Your vote to support  the Bay Delta Plan was the right one, and it’s particularly heartening to see a 9‐0 vote on this issue. It’s so important to  us all.  Sincerely,  Cheryl Lilienstein  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:terryt1011@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:thanks for supporting a healthy Central Valley river system Councilmembers- thank you for doing the right thing last night. you usually do. Terry A. Trumbull City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 9:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thanks for supports By Delta Water Plan Dear Palo Alto Council Members, Thanks for your support of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan. We who are concerned about protecting the health of the aquatic life in the Delta ecosystem — as well as benefitting ourselves by enjoying the wonderful water of the Tuolumne/Hetch Hetchy system — appreciate your wisdom in recognizing the importance of the hard-won compromises in the Bay Delta Plan. Thanks for your vote which will hopefully sway other jurisdictions to support this important plan. — Debbie Mytels Debbie Mytels 2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 856-7580 dmytels@batnet.com "Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day" City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2018 2:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Kinney <pkinney@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thanks for your vote last night. Thank you so much for endorsing the Bay Area Water Quality Control Plan.  I very much appreciate your willingness to listen to the facts of the matter and vote your conscience, Patricia Kinney  Wildwood Lane  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:04 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC Subject:PART 1 -- TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 08-01-18 UAC meeting, Item IX.1 -- transformers in UUD 15 (Greenacres I) Commissioners, Here's a transcript of Item IX.1 of your 08-15-18 meeting, the item that discussed refurbishing the electric distribution system in Underground Utility District #15 (Greenacres I). The main issue was whether the transformers should be moved from underground to above ground. I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###"). The transcript is in two parts, because of limitations of the system I'm working on. I don't know what advice UAC should give Council on this issue. I'm glad Greenacres I residents caused the issue to be brought to UAC so that it can be considered as a citywide issue. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ####################################################################################### 08-01-18 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66025 08-01-18 UAC meeting video: http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2/ 0:14:16: Chair Danaher: With that, we'll turn to agenda item number 1. 0:14:23: **: (unamplified) Can I have speaker card for number one? 0:14:25: Chair Danaher: Yeah, I have a bunch here. 0:14:26: **: (unamplified) OK. 0:14:29: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 2 Chair Danaher: All right. I'll just set the stage. Then we'll have the community comments. And staff will present. ### It's more traditional to let staff set the stage with a presentation and then have public comment. And then we'll have the discussion. Just to set the framework, beginning -- what -- about 50 -- 45 years ago, the City started undergrounding power lines for different neighborhoods. And so far, about 25 percent of the City has been undergrounded. Right now. And those installations are aging. And the City's been starting to replace the transformers in chronological order of when they were installed. ### Ideally, the staff report -- and staff presentation -- would have documented what the order is and would have given the rationale. I had the impression that likelihood of failure in the short term was at least one significant factor. And I'd be interested in how staff estimated these likelihoods. So, one neighborhood's already been done. And the one that's the subject of discussion tonight is the second one. And others will be scheduled in chronological order. When they were initially put in, in the early years, the City -- the neighborhoods that participated paid 25 percent of the cost of the installation. In later years, the City did away with that requirement. ### The staff report says that, in general, how much the residents of a Palo Alto neighborhood paid for undergrounding their neighborhood depended on whether the undergrounding was deemed to be a general public interest benefit, primarily a local benefit, or neither. It also says that for the primarily-local-benefit category, the split used to be 25/75, but at some point became 50/50 (and it doesn't say when or why). The 09-07-11 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30141 says the City pays for undergrounding the electric distribution system that goes down the street, but the homeowner pays for undergrounding the service connection from the street to the home. And the homeowner is responsible for determining the price, by hiring the contractor to do the work, so the price for each homeowner could be different. ### At some point -- maybe the next staff report -- it might be nice to document how undergrounding costs to customers have been determined over the years, since 1965. * for general public interest benefit / primarily local benefit / neither; * for going down the street / service connection; * as a fixed percentage / contracted by homeowner. But there was this cost-share element early on. The City is going at a very SLOW pace on undergrounding the rest of the City. Maybe one neighborhood every 3 to 5 years. I'm sure a lot of us would like that to go faster. But it's a very expensive process. ### The 09-07-11 staff report (cited above) says, "Historically, approximately 2% of the annual electric revenue has been used for funding an undergrounding program in an underground district, which typically takes three years to complete." In the 10-04-95 verbatim UAC minutes, Larry Starr says, "... we spend approximately 3 percent of our gross sales every year" on undergrounding. ### Is there a current policy about how much the City should be spending on undergrounding? And on whether re- undergrounding costs should be included? Staff sent us pictures of transformers on Monday. Some of us were driving around this evening looking at neighborhoods that have then out there. So we're conscious of this. I'm also conscious of the benefit of not having the overhead lines, which I think is lovely when you don't have that. And I'm blessed to be in a neighborhood that doesn't have those. And I don't know when mine comes up for replacing transformers. ### If it's chronological, UUD #23 is fourth on the list. So, those are sort of the framework for this. One thing that came up in discussion was -- since there's a big cost delta between undergrounding and overgrounding, whether that should be treated as a cost-share. And so, if people care to, when they make their comments, indicate if they feel their neighborhood or they would be willing to participate pro rata in the extra cost of undergrounding. I think that would be interesting data for the commission as we discuss this report. 0:16:44: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 3 With that in mind -- these were handed to me in different areas. I've just shuffled them. So, if there's any particular reason for anyone to come first, speak up. Otherwise, I'm going to start off with Nina Bell. 0:16:59: Ed Shikada: If I might, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, as Ms. Bell comes up to the microphone, if I could make a comment also. 0:17:04: Chair Danaher: Please. 0:17:04: Ed Shikada: I definitely, on behalf of staff, would like to acknowledge the level of anxiety and somewhat unanticipated stress that this has caused, really, to the neighborhood. And also, quite frankly, with staff. This is certainly not a project that staff has undertaken in order to create any anxiety among residents. And, in fact, is purely a project that was undertaken based upon staff's commitment to our mission to deliver safe, reliable, and cost-effective utility services. So, while recognizing that -- you know, undertaken for the best of intentions, that the communication hasn't gone all that well in some instances. And some of the interactions with some residents have gotten fairly contentious. We really wanted to emphasize the fact that staff is not in any way attempting to do this over the objections or in -- out of any expectations that, you know, this is something that is to be done over the -- outside of the will of the community. So, I just really wanted to share that perspective as we get started. Once community members are able to comment, we do have a pretty comprehensive presentation, that I think will provide some additional context and some options that could be helpful for the Commission's discussion. 0:18:32: Chair Danaher: All right. Thank you very much. 0:18:35: Nina Bell Is it on? There we go. Ah, Nina Bell. And I'm the person who sent you all those photographs with all the mock- ups. And I just want to make a correction. I think in my write-up about it, I said that I used 20-gallon cans. They were 32- gallon cans. I just felt like I want to get it correct. And hopefully you got all the photographs. Yes? Thank you. As I was walking in tonight, I was chatting with someone, and asked about the blue trees out front. And a word popped out from that person, who said it was a desecration. And it really started me thinking about the word "desecration." Because after 45 years of living in this neighborhood, with fully underground utilities, people who have bought in -- some people recently paid a million and one over the asking price -- to buy into our little neighborhood. And to have an expensive house that you've just built, with a four-foot cube placed in front of your living room window is a desecration. And I would like to quote the Comp Plan, that says the City strives to complement neighborhood character when installing streets or public space improvements. And to preserve neighborhoods. The character of a neighborhood. We have lived 45 years with a character in our neighborhood of all substructure. And I thank -- the cue into the word desecration. So -- Because it is a desecration to our neighborhood. ### The word "desecration" connotes treating something sacred as if it were not sacred, and perhaps even causing it to become not sacred. I don't like religious arguments. Aesthetics, reliability, safety, and cost are all important. 0:20:20: You asked a question about are we -- would I personally be willing to pay in, to have -- And my response to that is, I want to see the budget. I want see the accounting. I want to understand where the figures came from. So if -- We have asked those questions before, of Mr. Shikada, and Greg McKernan. We have gotten zero answers to all our questions. So, answer that one, and then maybe be can honestly say, yes, you know, I'll pay on the line. We need some answers, please. So, thank you all for your time and your listening. 0:21:08: Chair Danaher: (unamplified) Thank you ** By the way, I don't know what the numbers were communicated before ** presentation ** Jeff Hoel. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 4 0:21:22: Commissioner Trumbull: (unamplified) While Jeff's coming up, I just want to (amplified) reflect the Councilman Filseth is with us. 0:21:29: Councilmember Filseth: Apologies for being late. 0:21:30: Chair Danaher: (unamplified) That's all right. 0:21:33: Jeff Hoel: So, I think I will touch on matters other than aesthetics versus safety, and so forth. When I read the staff report, I thought there were a lot of documents that were referred to that I couldn't find online. And if I had had time, I could have come to City Hall and asked for them and had them printed out at some time and -- But I didn't do that. One of those documents was Resolution 7580, which is the thing that Council voted on that says, heck yes, we want to put these transformers above ground. Council did that on April 22, 1996. So I tried to find the minutes of that meeting, and I couldn't do it. I could find the week earlier, but not this particular meeting. Also, I couldn't find the staff report. And I couldn't find out if UAC had heard this issue before Council considered it, and, if so, when that was, and what the staff report was, and what UAC said about it. So, all of that stuff might have been made more accessible by a more complete staff report for tonight. ### In response to my comment, staff sent me an email with a 90-page attachment, comprising: * the 04-22-96 staff report to Council (6 pages) * Resolution 7580 (2 pages) * the 10-04-95 staff report to UAC (2 pages) * a 08-07-95 memo from Mike Beanland to Larry Starr (4 pages) * Exhibit 1 -- a PG&E document about screening padmount transformers (12 pages) * Exhibit 2 -- a document about equipment siting (6 pages) * RR #1 (1 page) * RR #1-3 (1 page) * the 01-04-95 UAC verbatim minutes (14 pages) * the 11-02-95 ARB verbatim minutes (14 pages) * the 11-08-95 PTC verbatim minutes (17 pages) * a blank page * an environmental checklist form (10 pages) This was very helpful. Thanks very much. But it doesn't make the information accessible to the public. Also, I have a question. Are -- Is staff proposing to re-use the existing conduit in doing this refurbishing? You know, what was the lifetime expectation for conduit in 1973, when they put the stuff in? What's the lifetime expectation for the conduit now? If the conduit's going to fail before everything else, maybe you should replace the conduit now, too. But that might involve digging stuff up. Which would be more expensive and make things uglier for a time. But if you dig stuff up, the City is working on a "dig-once" ordinance that says every time you dig stuff up, put in conduit for fiber. Which I would encourage you to do, if for no other reason -- I mean, suppose we never get to fiber-to-the-premises ... 0:23:41: Chair Danaher: (unamplified) I'd have been disappointed if you (amplified) hadn't mentioned fiber. So, thank you. 0:23:43: Jeff Hoel, Well, you're welcome. My pleasure. But SCADA for the transformers might be real interesting. Because the claim is that the reason they fail is because, over a period of time, they run hotter than they wish they could run. And so, it would be like -- it would be nice to be able to measure this over time. I think that's all I'll say tonight. Thanks. 0:24:09: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 5 Chair Danaher: Thank you, Jeff. Alice Sklar. 0:24:28: Alice Sklar: Can you hear me? My name is Alice Sklar. I live at 632 Fairmede in Greenacres. I'm also the President of the Greenacres Improvement Association. I'm here tonight to represent myself. And when I want to speak for the association, I'll let you know. The question about what to do about updating the utilities in Greenacres is of some urgency because, as has already been mentioned, the utilities are over 45 years old, therefore in danger of breaking down, causing damage, injuring citizens, as well as interrupting our service for unknown periods of time. We are therefore eager to conclude the conversation with the commission tonight, and leave with a decision. My personal preference is for the conclusion to be to allow the Utilities Department to restore our service, which has always been entirely underground. I'd like to add, I was one of the families that helped pay for the undergrounding the first time around. The Utilities Department told Greenacres I that the department needed direction from you people, the Utilities Advisory Council [sic], since existing regulations did not allow them to place utilities entirely underground, as they had done many years ago. So, we've waited to hear what you will suggest. Meanwhile, Greenacres residents have been meeting, talking, and researching the issues, and coming to their own conclusions, which you will hear in no particular order. Please be aware that the Greenacres Association Board does not necessarily endorse the opinions that are expressed here tonight. What the GAA board wants from this evening is to have -- to leave, knowing what evidence there is that (quote) "having our utilities fully undergrounded is dangerous to us or the community." [unquote] We understand that there are self-imposed regulations by which the Utilities Department operates. But that is not what we are asking. We want to know the actual science involved in the question. We want to know about safety and not regulations. Regulations can be changed, but science can't. Please don't disappoint us. In answer to your question about -- would I personally be willing to pay a cost-share, yes, I would. I'd like to be convinced that that number is $3,600. But if that's what it was, I'd be happy to do that and move on. Thank you. 0:27:32: Chair Danaher: Thank you very much. By the way, everybody's been very good about this. I am just -- That was my clock going off. There's generally a three-minute limit. We're not going to hold fast to it, as long as we keep moving along. But I'm keeping an eye on it, just in case. Eugene Lee. 0:27:54: Eugene Lee: Chairman Danaher, members of the commission, my name is Eugene Lee, and I'm a resident of Greenacres. Actually, I was here with my wife a few months ago, as well, at the meeting, to express our opinions regarding the plan by -- that's proposed to install the padmounted equipment. You know, obviously, our community has shared a lot of our concerns with Utilities regarding this issue. And I'm not going to rehash them, since there's a three- minute limit. So, I figured what I'd probably do is just share a personal reason why. When I was a kid growing up in Pacifica, you know, my brother and I played outside, in the fog. And we used to have a pole-mounted transformer, right outside of our house. You know, on foggy days, we'd hear a lot of these little hissing noises, you know. It sounded really fun and friendly, and very, very exciting sometimes to little kids. We were just like 5 and 6. You know. Then, in 1980, my mother was diagnosed with cancer. Now, she underwent treatment for a number of years. And, obviously, it was a very painful process. That was also the time when the science started the issues about EMF and what effects it could have on human health. So, at that time, being young, we didn't get involved in that kind of issues. But my father -- my parents, nonetheless -- You know, at that point, 1985 -- five years after my mother was diagnosed with cancer -- decided to move to a home. And when we moved, we made sure the home did not have anything overground. Everything was undergrounded. This was in San Francisco. We found a place. So, we lived happily afterwards. And when I got married in 2000, my wife and I settled in Palo Alto. And one of the key criteria that we selected -- why we selected our home in Greenacres -- was because everything, including the transformers, were underground. And so, for the last almost 18 years, we've lived happily in nirvana -- in Greenacres. And then, one day this spring, we received a letter saying, you know, basically, there's going to be a discussion -- I think a few days afterwards, just in March -- that, you know, we'll discuss the installation plan, you know, in August. This year. For boxes. And, as you know it, there's a box right in front of my house. ### Later (1:33:18), we learn that staff's map of the proposed design (see page 6 of Nina Bell's message) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65979 was not intended to show exactly where the transformers would be located. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 6 ### In the verbatim minutes of the 10-04-95 UAC meeting, Larry Starr says, "... all the sites are negotiated. We do not go out there and say, you get one and you get one. There is quite a bit of flexibility as to where they go, so we try to negotiate with the neighbors and see who has an area that would not be too objectionable." Commissioner Chandler asks, "Do you pay for an easement?" Starr replies, "That is correct." And, actually, one other thing I forgot to mention is that my in-laws own the home next to me. So, actually, it's right in between our homes. And so, you know, the funny thing is that I've been Palo Alto for over 18 years. I've always wondered -- I never knew this chamber existed until this year. And I've always wondered what it would take to get me here. Well, the answer is, there's going to be a box, that's probably about four and a half feet wide, and very tall, and something that creates -- cause childhood fears. It's going to be installed within 20 feet of one of our bedrooms. If the plan is proposed. So, members of the commission, this is the reason I am here today. To share with you my personal story. And to urge you to ask the commission -- ask the public utilities -- to please reconsider their current proposal. Thank you. 0:30:50: Chair Danaher: Mister Lee, thanks very much. Xiaoqian Shi. OK. 0:31:10: Xiaoqian Shi: Hello, commissioners. My name is Xiaoqian Shi. And I live in the Greenacres area, as well. I want to say that I feel the same -- share a sentiment -- Nina's sentiment -- although I live in the area for 10 of the years that she enjoy for 40 years. And I feel like this plan that has been proposed is to modify my house without an agreement from me. And also, it was not -- I was not given the compelling reason why it was done so. So it is -- if the proposal was adopted, I would feel very violated. As to the cost of the cost-sharing of the undergrounding of the -- keeping the transformer underground, I feel, over the years, the City should have budgeted for maintaining the equipment underground, since it's already underground to begin with. I think the analogy is almost like, you build a subway station, and you have to plan a budget to maintain a subway station, instead of maintaining a bus station. And certainly not replace a subway train, at the end of 40 years, with some above-ground buses. And I just want to share my sentiment with the commission -- commissioners. And thank you for your attention. 0:32:27: Chair Danaher: Mr. Shi, thank you. Garbo Lee. 0:32:48: Garbo Lee: Good evening. My name is Garbo Lee. We're -- My husband and I -- Winston Lee -- we're slated to have one of these lovely boxes right in front of our home. Which is actually less than 20 feet from our bedroom. So, -- but, anyway -- so, I wanted to let you know, we paid top dollar to move into that neighborhood. Our previous home had one of those telephone pole things, like Eugene's home had. And when we found our next home, in Greenacres, we were so thrilled. Just like you said, you felt blessed ... 0:33:17: Chair Danaher: Yeah. 0:33:17: Garbo Lee: ... to have an underground utilities, we felt the same way. And we would like to maintain the current quality of neighborhood that we have. And the current, you know, utilities plan that we have. Because, honestly, we got like a notice the day before that, you know, there was going to be this padmount construction coming up. And then, fortunately, our neighbors notice it. Like, oh, they're supposed to do this on Monday. What? Today is Friday. That's like two days from now. And so, we were quite surprised to find this letter. But, anyway, so, we're very grateful to our neighbors to have pointed it out. And since then, the core people, that are supposed to have all these 8 boxes -- or however many there are -- and the switch boxes -- we have all come together. And we have met in my home -- in our home. Twice now, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 7 at least. And we've talked on other occasions. We've maintained communication about this. And we really would prefer to stay blessed, as you have said. We really like it a lot. And I think we -- you asked if we'd paid -- how we felt about paying. Well, I know -- I understand, Ms. Sklar said she paid $500. But in -- There was another. We had a meeting with Mr. Shikada -- I can't remember when it was, but there was another party there. They said, we've already paid the $500. Why are we paying again? You know, we've paid for utilities. When we purchased the house, we -- When you buy a house in Palo Alto -- We spent years searching for the house. And when you spend years searching for the house, not only are you spending that time searching for the house, you're also spending top dollar to even get a house. Which we did. OK? I mean, I think everybody who buys a house in Palo Alto does that. And when we paid for that, I think we're paying for whatever the previous owner -- they paid for that, and that was part of our purchase price. So, when we -- when you're asking us, like, do we want to pay another $3,500? And we pay a lot of taxes to be in Palo Alto. We're wondering, where is the money? We pay you a ton of taxes. We've been -- I've been living in Palo Alto -- I don't know -- like 20-something years. We've paid our taxes. Why do we need to pay to replace light substructures. I don't understand that. So, if you're going to ask, me, personally, my family, we would prefer not to pay. And we would prefer to maintain our current quality. And, as you say, to stay blessed. And enjoy the neighborhood, just like you have. So, thank you. ### In Palo Alto, utility costs are paid for by ratepayers, not taxpayers. 0:35:39: Chair Danaher: Thank you. Michael Maurier. 0:35:46: Michael Maurier: (unamplified) My card came in last. I'm happy to have others speak ... 0:35:50: Chair Danaher: All right. Then we'll put you at the bottom of the pile. So, Frankie Farhat 0:35:55: Frankie Farhat (unamplified) I think there are some other owners who have had boxes at their house that would like to ** first. ** 0:36:04: Chair Danaher: Well, I have cards from Yu Fang, Stuart Kreitman, Frankie Farhat, and Michael Maurier. And I think there's one other in here. Lin Lu. Yeah. And which one are you? OK. Great. Yu Fang. OK. Great. 0:36:23: Yu Fang: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And the committee [sic] members. So, my name's Yu Fang. My family live on Los Palos. In Greenacre neighborhood. So, I just want to share a few thoughts from me and my family on this issue. And we really would like the committee [sic] to support us, to maintain the underground utility that we have. So, about ten years ago, my family move into this neighborhood. Right? So, as you all know, the reason that we move into that neighborhood is because, you know, it's so beautiful. It's to quiet and tranquil. And we feel really safe for the kids to live in that neighborhood. Right? And about five years ago, our family we remodel our house. Right? As part of the architecture review phase, the City has went through the very extensive review of the plan. And one of the very important criteria is that we have to maintain, basically, the characteristic of the neighborhood, when we're remodelling. Right? And we're very happy to comply with that. So, therefore, we're, honestly, very shocked when we heard that the City -- the utility -- wants to dramatically change it. Right? By moving this utilities only above ground. Right? So therefore, that's something that we felt very disappointed about. And we hope that that decision can be reversed. Right? Secondly, this underground utility was installed 45 years ago. And over that period of time, it has operated without any major incidents. Right? ### Perhaps there were no major incidents in Greenacres I (UUD #15), but there were incidents elsewhere in the City. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 8 So, we are -- And, also, we are in this new age where you have subways everywhere. Right? So, we're wondering why suddenly there's a reason that we have to move everything above ground. The technology has evolved so much that something that we can do 45 years ago, why we cannot do it today? Right? ### What staff would probably say is that, in hindsight, the City didn't have the technology to implement an all- underground electric distribution system that was safe enough, reliable enough, and cost-effective enough. So, we've felt that there's no strong reason to move it. Or change it. Right? There should be a way to preserve what it is. If we can do it 45 years ago. So, lastly, just about the procedural side. As some of the neighborhood mentioned earlier, that, you know, about two days ago, we got informed that the utility wants to make this change. And they're going to start the work. Which is absolutely a shock to all of us. Right? So, in the last couple months, we have some dialog with the utilities. And we were promised that this is not something that will be forced upon us. There is going to be discussion. There is going to be dialog. However, when we see the report, we didn't find any representation of what we are thinking, in that report. And what our opinions are, in that report. And we also have not received any real data to back up the recommendation from that report. Right? So, therefore, because of that, I think, you know, we are all very united to -- on this issue. And we really hope that the committee will support us on this. Thanks very much. 0:39:23: Chair Danaher: All right, Mr. Fang. Thank you very much. Let's see. Lin Liu. Is it OK now? Oops. 0:39:38: Lin Liu: Thank you. My name is Lin Liu. I moved to Palo Alto a few years ago. Moving to Palo Alto is definitely a dream come true for me, my family, my children. We love the City, love the neighborhood, love the street view. Basically everything. So, when we heard about the project, we were very concerned. So we wrote a lot of letters. We met -- tried to meet -- in person with the City, to express our concerns. We ask questions. We would like to see some data analysis. I was in those meetings, and we were promised that the City won't force it on us. But from the proposal as it is, that's what -- the City is just doing that. So I'm very surprised, and very disappointed. So -- And, also, none of the questions have been answered. We haven't seen any research, any data -- You know, just --We have their safety concern, just to name one. You know, it's -- We all have children. We are next door to Terman Middle School. The marching band march in our street all the time, you know. It's just a lot of things. Just -- In terms of the costs, I literally paid millions to buy the house and rebuild the house. I don't think it's fair for me to pay before the questions we ask got answered. Then I cannot answer that question. I don't know what I'm paying for. I think the City should have budget to cover this, you know. Again, you know, I would like those questions we asked to be answered before we answer that question. Better understand what we are paying for. Why we need to pay for that. Thank you. 0:41:23: Chair Danaher: All right. Ms. Liu, thank you very much. Stuart Kreitman. OK. Great. 0:41:39: Stuart Kreitman: Give me a second. Good evening, commission. My name is Stuart Kreitman. Resident of Greenacres since 1991. I'm trying to be neutral and objective about this issue. As an engineer, I defer to the experts in the matter -- the power engineers. But I would like to be able to correlate the documents I'm reading for accuracy. And we received a letter from Ed Shikada about a week ago. And there's a cons- -- Backtrack a little bit. There is a recurring theme here that the neighborhood -- the neighbors are not getting their questions answered, or not getting a clear understanding of issues of safety, or capacity. You know what the technical aspects of this decision are. They're also not getting a firm understanding of the costs involved. Whether it's their obligation to pay. That -- those sorts of things. So, I read Ed Shikada's letter pretty carefully. And I read the documents -- the -- I forget what "RR" -- I was abbreviating myself. But I read the resolution 7580 and the RRs from 1 to 20. And there -- I would like to assure that future conversations about this are done with the i's dotted and the t's crossed. One small example of a potential disagreement or inaccuracy that I'll give you is a reference to a special facilities fee in Ed's report, on page 5. In RR20.J.1, I read, "Special Facilities are facilities requested ..." blah, blah, blah "... by an Applicant ..." City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 9 ### RR20: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8208 Just to be brief, "Special Facilities" do not refer to transformers or infrastructure that is shared by people. "Special Facilities" refers to utility point of entry, at a person's house. So, it doesn't seem like raising that is -- that dot connects to the cost of transformers. Basically, in a conversation longer than three minutes, we could discuss how accurate the information given to us is. And I would like to just hone it so that the things that are said verbally correlate precisely to the things that are written. That's it. Thanks. 0:44:45: Chair Danaher: All right. Mr. Kreitman, thank you. Frankie Farhat. 0:44:57: Frankie Farhat: Hello. To members of the commission. My name is Frankie Farhat, and I'm a resident of Greenacres I. Although no transformer is supposed to be installed in front of my house, I'm very concerned by this project, as some of you already know. And I'd like to propose maybe a solution, to reduce the friction between the City and the Utility Department and our neighborhood. Nina mentioned that we fully embrace the Comp Plan. I don't think I need to state it, but, basically, you are trying to provide us with functionality, capacity, and at the same time, you're also considering the beauty of our environment, and the character of the neighborhood. And this is all great. And we also appreciate the proactiveness that the Utility Department is showing by considering our neighborhood. However, I would like everybody - - I think you understand by now, but our neighborhood is very different from most neighborhoods in Palo Alto. Most neighborhoods have poles, they have wires, they have cables that go through trees. They have all kinds of issues. And, certainly, those kinds of improvements that you're trying to bring to the City would be great improvements, from a functional standpoint, as well as an aesthetic standpoint. We at Greenacres I are totally different. We don't have poles, we don't have lines between the trees. We are happy. And the -- we have the capacity that we need. So far. We don't have any reliability problems. I mean, it's almost paradise for us. So, any change that would be implemented on us -- especially those that have been presented to us in documents -- would be negative. It would be a drawback, compared to where we are. And so, what I would like to say is that let's not rush things. Don't -- Thank you very much for putting Greenacres I at the top of your list in your heart. But -- You know, we are very honored of being there. But I'd like to take a step back. We would prefer to see our upgrades implemented in some other neighborhoods before us. Neighborhoods that would be able to benefit from the functional improvement and the aesthetics improvement. In the meantime, let's wait. Put us back a little bit on the list. Give us some time to maybe get together so that we can find funding, one way or another, to keep everything underground. Or maybe find us some time to look into some points that seem very important to me. Points that were brought up by Stuart Kreitman and by Joel Hoel, if I'm not mistaken. I have not -- mispronouncing his name. ### Jeff Hoel. And get answers to many of the questions that have been raised today. So, thank you for putting us at the top of your list. But let's take a step back. Let's find something that may work better for everybody. Thank you very much. 0:47:52: Chair Danaher: All right. Thank you, Ms. Farhat. All right. Michael Maurier. 0:48:04: Michael Maurier: Good evening, folks. I'm having a terrible time hearing, because I'm partly deaf. So, if you'd speak up a bit. I'm Mike Maurier. I live at 646 Fairmede. The 27- or 30-page letter that you got ### The letter is available here (pages 2-31). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65979 was largely my fault, and I apologize for it. I hope you did read it. But I apologize if you did -- waded all the way through it. 0:48:22: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/16/2018 1:41 PM 10 Chair Danaher: It's in our packet ** 0:48:22: Michael Maurier: This is an odd one. Our little neighborhood is know as Fort Apache, in my own mind. If we don't have something going on Arastradero, we have something in the creek. If it isn't the creek, it's Terman. If it isn't Terman, it's the hotel. You know, the Apache circle us rather regularly, and we've been through several little outings. Some ended well, some ended poorly. This one was a surprise, however. I don't think I've seen one that was as suddenly and abruptly presented as this one -- let's put it that way. And it was a deep shock. In all the years I've been in various aspects of government and consulting service, I've never seen anything communicated like this. Or, frankly, as poorly. This -- That is a double shock. To date, pretty much, all of that served to encourage the waiverers, had they any questions or doubt over trying to be fair or rational about the possibility of there being anything wrong with a problem they didn't see. Because that has pretty well consolidated in the -- I wouldn't say unanimous. I got in trouble for saying that once. Not unanimous. There's always a few. But really overwhelming opposition to this. Mostly because we didn't get information, or questions answered in anything approximating a timely manner. At any stage of the proceedings. In fact, it got worse, to the point that my confidence, at least, in what I was hearing in the information simply dwindled to zero. And I think that has been shared by everybody. 0:50:09: Were I -- There were several questions that didn't get answered, and one of which was, why us? We -- We don't have a problem. How come we're first on the list? Everything's already underground. And I thought that was the general trend, from what I've been reading, in the City. To underground or otherwise beautify, or whatever. Ultimately, what I came up with is my rationale, in the absence of any other input was, maybe it's just convenience -- easier to drive it up in a truck, rather than lift the grate and blow the leaves out. You know, they're opening gratings, and they got leaves in there. And have a look, and shut up, and go off. Unfortunately, that didn't really take any of our considerations into account. That might have been convenience. We really didn't hear any other rationale for the whole business, at any stage of the proceedings. And pretty soon, we gave up trying, and went to the UAC. It seems to me that this whole proposal, which came out of left field, and still hasn't been rationalized in any manner, shape, or form to anybody's satisfaction that I've heard, basically flies in the face of the Comprehensive Plan impetus to preserve the neighborhood character. Our neighborhood character depends practically -- wholly -- our little ranch houses -- depend on undergrounded utilities. That's it. That's all we've got. Otherwise, we've just have a bunch of little ranch houses on the south side of Arastradero. When that goes, urban blight and ranch houses. So this kind of struck at the nature of our identity. And the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood, I thought. What we didn't get at any stage of the proceedings, in the way this has all gone down, is any indication of any flexibility, unless we fought very hard and complained vigorously. We're hoping you'll show more flexibility with respect to this particular neighborhood. We don't know why we're on the list. 0:52:05: Were it I, I would look for one of three outcomes, as a way we can all back off from this. * Take us off the list. Until we have a problem, just take us off the list. I don't get the sensation from the Utilities Department that's probably going to be something they'd be very thrilled with. * The second option might be, take us off the list until you can find a way to pay for it. The question of paying for it came up this evening. And my answer would be, we have received no cost justification for the numbers we have seen. There has been no breakdown, no discussion. We just -- We're presented with a number, out of the air. Under duress, when it became apparent that maybe -- We were initially told, we can't replace these things underground. It has to be above ground. That's it. One size fits all. We're outta here. Then it developed, well, maybe if we paid for it, maybe we could do that. But it was going to cost us. 3,500 bucks a house was the number we heard ** about. But from where? Never heard anything. So, we -- I'd be very reluctant to pay for it. I'm capable of paying for it. Might be willing to pay for it, if I see any justification. * The third option, then, might be, take us off the list until we can figure out a way to pay for it. I've heard nobody, other than the -- a few possible suggestions from budgeting people, saying, if we have to pay something, AGAIN -- which goes against the grain of those who paid initially, and already purchased this -- and those of us who paid for it in the cost of the homes we purchased -- if we have to pay for it again, how could we do it creatively and avoid a cash flow hit of a $3,500 lump sum? That feels to me a lot like an attempt to divide. Not everybody in our neighborhood, despite the myth ... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:35 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 8:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Update for 429 University Ave Appeal Attachments:Appellants' Objections to 429 University.pdf Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members: I am writing to update you regarding the appeal we pursued regarding the development of 429 University Avenue at the intersection of Kipling Street. On February 6, 2017 the City Council approved Building Option 1 designed by Joseph Bellomo Architects on behalf of Elizabeth Wong. Included with that approval were specific Council mandated rules which the applicant must follow. These included ARB approval of the western wall design, landscaping, and exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship. Since that time the applicant fired the architect who had designed the Council approved Option 1. Joe Bellomo has publicly "disavowed" himself from the building and its design. The applicant did not return to the ARB within the one year time frame as required in the permit process. The Planning Department granted her a one year extension. After 18 months since the original City Council ruling, the applicant appeared before the ARB on August 16, 2018. This was the first time that the ARB had seen Option 1. The ARB unanimously voted 3-0 against the submitted design plans and continued the meeting to a future undetermined date. At the conclusion of the ARB meeting, the applicant vowed to obtain her building permit "prior" to the design being approved. This is in direct violation of the City Council motion. (Please see the appellants' most recent opposition to the design comments attached in a PDF). Our original appeal was filed based on violations of municipal code 18.18.100 which specifically addresses design, context and compatibility. It is unfair to the appellants and the citizens of Palo Alto to allow the applicant any special treatment to circumvent these requirements. Your City Council resolution was clear that she must abide by the ARB design approval process. She has already won the ability demolish Birge Clark buildings and construct a mammoth four story building with maximum FAR on this premier site adjacent to Victorian homes. If the applicant was to begin demolition or construction before all design items were resolved, it would give her a "vesting claim" to continue building the project without adhering to the council mandate. The responsibility of submitting the design plans to the ARB lies solely with the applicant. It is not our fault that she exceeded her one year limit, applied for an extension, and then submitted her first proposal to the ARB more than 18 months after the city's resolution. Given that she fired her architect and the ARB has not weighed in on Option 1, I urge you to uphold your resolution and make the applicant abide to the Palo Alto design standards as guarded by the ARB. Best regards, Michael Harbour, MD, MPH Lead Appellant for 429 University Ave Property owner: 421 and 423 Kipling Street Downtown North Resident: 480 Palo Alto Ave Palo Alto ARB Quasi-Judicial Hearing Appellants’ Objections to 429 University Ave Design Proposal August 16, 2018 History: This project was appealed by neighbors and community members. Project was NOT approved by the Palo Alto ARB and the HRB. However, the project was narrowly approved by the city council on February 6, 2017. The applicant has exceeded her 1-year time limit and was granted an extension by the planning depart. Today: Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing as mandated by the City Council decision New Architect: Peter Tat-Ping Ko Landscape Architect: Greg Ing Reason for Quasi-Judicial Hearing: 1. Evaluate Proposed West Elevation Wall Design 2. Evaluate Landscape Details 3. Evaluate Exterior Building Materials, Colors and Craftmanship Objection to West Elevation based on Municipal Code Violation 18.18.110 1. West Elevation Wall Design is out of character and context with rest of the building design. It is not consistent nor compatible with that which was originally proposed to this ARB Board or City Council by Architect Joe Bellomo. 2. The side chevrons appear like some sort of tribal pattern and clearly stick out as an add on by a different person not related to the original project. 3. When looking eastward down University Ave, the design is not compatible with the iconic Varsity Theatre architecture, Birge Clark former Apple building and the Hotel President. It is Impossible to Evaluate the Expected Craftsmanship of the building or landscape because the applicant has not provided any background information, experience or completed past projects of either the new building architect, contractor, project manager or landscape architect. 1. Joe Bellomo and associates have disavowed themselves from this design. In a phone conversation with Mr. Bellomo, he told Dr. Harbour that “the current design is NOT his” and he is “no longer affiliated with the building.” Therefore, the applicant is obligated to resubmit the entire plan to the ARB, Council and community in its entirety for evaluation. It these plans is not satisfactory, then the ARB must immediately notify the city council of such. 2. The applicant previously praised her choice of architect for this project as the recipient of multiple awards including the Birge Clark Award. She told all of us at a past ARB hearing that it would be an “iconic” building that would anchor the existing building at 102 University Ave at Alma St. He has a known track record. Now that architect is no longer affiliated and disavows this building, this must be taken into consideration for the approval. 3. The submitted Bellomo project is unique because of it’s construction materials and craftsmanship. The applicant and her designees must convince this Board and the appellant that they have the experience and capability to construct and manage such a project. What can they offer to convince us of this? 4. It appears that the applicant has committed a “Bait and Switch” tactic to cut costs which will result in unknown quality and craftsmanship. This is too important and historic parcel to be left to chance without additional scrutiny and confirmation of quality. We must remember that Birge Clark designed buildings are to be torn down to construct this new building. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2018 4:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 17, 2018 12:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:What else? Liz Kniss's comment about traffic. No, I will not let her comment go, even her last one. Actually, driving down University is a good first start. But, be adventurous. Do you know where East Charleston is? (Or, Middlefield, San Antonio Road, Louis, Loma Verde etc). Not all busy streets, but I imagine they're out of your driving zone. First of all, they're all in the midtown area and southern Palo Alto, those outlying areas of Palo Alto. Charleston is where the huge Google buses, the speeding BMW's, Teslas, and Audis, etc. drive like crazy, over the tracks, to make the Carlson light. then the Nelson light, and then the Middlefield light. C'mon over. I'll treat you to a glass of 2nd growth red and we'll sit out in our lawn chairs, watching and listening to the traffic. But, we won't be able to talk much b/c during a good deal of the day we won't be able to hear over the traffic. Best, just sign me the LOL on East Charleston Gloria Pyszka 284 East Charleston City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:32 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 19, 2018 3:27 PM To:rabrica@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; mbuell@cityofepa.org; apardini@cityofepa.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; fields.randal@gmail.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; myraw@smcba.org; emibach@padailypost.com; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; ibain@redwoodcity.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; price@padailypost.com; Council, City; HRC; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; chuckjagoda1 @gmail.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com; allison@padailypost.com; Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; anna.griffin@rda.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; dprice@padailypost.com; Doug Fort; aflint@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org; Kevin.Nious@nbcuni.com; jpk@pobox.com; jeffadachi@yahoo.com; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org; acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com; rkonda@asianlawalliance.org; lgauthier@cityofepa.org; Lewis. james; bunnychiba@icloud.com; JIM MINKLER1 Cc:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Constantino, Mary Subject:Why the City of East Palo Alto -should just say NO to Tasers Attachments:Aram James (DJ-1-12-18).pdf August 19, 2019 ( Article # 2) Dear East Palo Alto City Council: In hopes that we can all become more fully informed on the extraordinary risks of injury and death, associated with Tasers, I am sending members of the city council, and other government officials, et al: a series of articles on both the moral and financial costs associated with the use of Tasers. Yesterday (August 18), I sent each of you the awarding winning & comprehensive 7 part series on Tasers published by Reuters ( August 2017-February 2018). If I missed someone on today’s list, re yesterday’s piece- please let me know, and I will send it your way. Today, I am sending, for your information, an article co-written by attorneys Richard Konda and Aram James, in January of 2018. The article is titled: No excuse for Tasers in our jails ( see pdf below). The arguments made against the use of Tasers in our jails, are equally applicable to the use of Tasers by law enforcement, on the streets of our cities. I believe that the below article provides a well reasoned road map re why cities that have Tasers, should shelve them, and why cities like East Palo Alto- that have yet to purchase them, should decline to do so. I look forward to any questions or feedback you have re the article. In a few days, I will be sending out another article on Tasers, for your contemplation. In the end, I’m hopeful we can all stand united against the use of Tasers by law enforcement, in our cities, and in our jails. Let the conversation begin. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/20/2018 8:32 AM 2 Best regards, Aram James State-bar # 80215 415-370-5056 Sent from my iPhone .. CUBBERLEY CO-DESIGN Community Fellows Volunteer Job Description Role Overview Community Planning Fellows primarily act as the community's tour guide in the planning process. Our planning process is a "co-design" process, where the community is proactively engaged in planning and design decisions. In this co-design process, residents will work together to propose ideas, negotiate priorities, consider options, and give continuous feedback on master planning progress for the Cubberley site. The central venue for this co-design engagement will be at four public community meetings that will be structured around round-table discussions and activities. The fellow assists in guiding the community to a broad understanding of the general acti,,ities and goals of each meeting and helps recruit and spread the word to the community to participate at the meetings. Concordia will support fellows in understanding the project and process in order to recruit a broad representative group of community members to participate. Concordia will support fellows to have familiarity with the process so that they can explain it to their neighbors and other community members. Finally, the fellO\v collaborates with Concordia and the client to provide advice and feedback about the process to maximize community understanding, participation, and input. Fellows are not in a priYileged position when it comes to decisions about project outcomes. At meetings, when project- related data is being collected from the community, fellO\vs have equal voice as any other participant. Their role as fellows is to be a neutral party in helping others understand how to fully engage in the process. 111ey help give the community the tools they need to make informed and educated decisions throughout the planning process. .,.. ( Duties of a Community Planning Fellow The Community Organizer As organi7.ers, the fellow's job is to recruit community members that have the capacity to participate over a period of months. Because the planning process is iteratiYe, each meeting builds on the \vork done at previous meetings. , \lthough each meeting will be designed to invite newcomers, continuity of participants \viii strengthen the process and help newcomers come onboard. Finding participants at the outset who arc likely to participate throughout \\'ill return di\·idends to the process. As an organizer, the fellow reaches out to their own networks and to new networks to reach diverse groups throughout the community and inform them of the upcoming co-design process. This involves the abilit) to communicate with people of varying professions, ages, and cultural groups to help people communicate \Vith one another, to convince people that it is \\'Orth giving their time to the effort, and most importantly, to lead in such a way that encourages other~ to lead themsekes. The effort of thi organizing will be greatest prior to the first meeting, but will repeat prior to each of the following meetings to remind those networks of the upcoming event and share the results from the previous meetings. The Educator Throughout the process, fellows are educating community members about the co-design process and assisting them in understanding tasks at meetings. These responsibilities require skills including the abilit)' to explain things clearly, active listening, and patience. Prior to meetings, this education is part and parcel to the outreach and organizing effort, and im·okes informing others about the goals of the project and how the process is unfolding in collaboration with the communit)·. bringing people up to speed prior to the communit)-meetings. Meeting Support Staff The fellow is a support staff to the community to give them what they need to make the decisions for the planning process. Fellows will also help with meeting set-up and take-down, \vhich may involve laying out meeting materials and refreshments and generally preparing the space to be organized and accommodating to the community. The fellow's dedication to the community is often best demonstrated through these acti,·ities. Table Hosts Fellows may be required to act as "table hosts" to assist meeting participants in follO\ving the agenda and completing activities during the meetings. A table host is someone at the table who helps others understand the activities and ensures participation from everyone at the table. Distinct from a traditional facilitator, the table host can also participate in the activity and give their input like everyone else but ts tasked in making sure all voices are heard and reflected in the input collected on the table sheet. As a table host, a feUow must be able to think on his or her feet and be a good listener. It is not the role of a table host to do any tasks for others or push an agenda. The table host encourages the table group to work through questions in collaboration with each other. Leadership Qualities of a Fellow 1. Respect: J\Iu st be able to appreciate a diversity of viewpoints and treat everyone with respect and compassion. 2. Active Listening: Being receptive to what others are saying and asking the right questions, rather than fulfilling expectations for answers. 3. Verbal Facilitation: Ability to speak confidently and with ease, in clear, simple language that e\•eryone can understand. Ability to direct attention to the tasks at hand, providing focus and structure to the conversation \vhile also nurturing creativity and easy flow of ideas. 4. Team-Building: Interpersonal skills and experience in putting together working groups O\'er a sustained period of time. The ability to facilitate the development of a shared vision around a table and foster a sense of 'we' that feels inclusive and engaging to all. 5. Mediation: Ability to clarify points of \·iew and shared or differing values in neutral terms. This doesn't mean papering O\'er disagreements, but engaging in them with a calm, constructive, and respectful way, so all views can be fully expressed and discussed in a spirit of learning and understanding. 6. Openness: Being open and flexible with ideas and able to help others be creative. Especially at the beginning of th.i · process, there are no foolish or unrealistic ideas. The space around the table should welcome creativity, imagination, and encouragement. Expectations and Time Commitment Community fellows will be expected to participate in a 1.5 day training session in early September (tentatively planned between September 5th and September 8th) which will prepare tl1e fellows for the project and also provide general coaching on community-based planning . .r\fter tl1is training session, fellows will be expected to ,-olunteer roughly 10-15 hours per meeting, which includes time spent conducting outreach in the month preceding the meeting, communication, an activity run-tlu-ough the day prior to the meeting (can be in person or by video-conference), and day-of meeting preparation and participation. Next Steps If you arc interested in becoming a Community Fellow for the Cubberley Co-Design process or ha,·e an) questions, please contact Bobbie Hill at bhill@concordia.com and 30-1-.5-H.2653. ~ Palo J\lto -Unified '-clt•K>l l.>1-rl!Lt Q CI T Y O F PALO ALTO concordia A c1TY OF WPALOALTO concordia architecture I planning I commun1ty engagement ' QUNCIL MEET~N~ 1: .· 8/lG/2018 lM~~t ~ l 'ro1 tK , · __u-- lPciCed Before Meeting .-;.; c:...++5 ] Received at Meeting -· ·. CUBBERLEV CO-DESIGN Palo Alto Unitinl s,·llllol D1\1J Ill concordio Concordia: harmony and agreement among people and things. It's our one word mission statement. We create authentic community-centered processes and spaces shaped by the people who will use them every day. 1 . .. Where we've worked: ·. . : .. . ··. ... . . .. . .. . 8/16/2018 ' How we think: ORGANIZAT ON NEXUS PLANNING FRAMEWORK 2 8/16/2018 EMERYVILLE CENTER OF COMMUNITY LIFE EMERYVILLE. CA Global Award of Excellence, 2017-2018, Urban Land Institute 3 PROGRAM OPTIMIZATION o office • School Community 0 Additional Program Shared Capability 8/16/2018 . 4 INCREASED UTILIZATION COST SAVINGS 250000 3 200000 Qi (I) 150000 u.. (I) ... ca :::::J C" 100000 en 50000 0 MULTI-PURPOSE THEATER LIBRARY HEALTH CLINIC • Conceptual Master Plan Program I • Program Right-Sized • Highly Utilized • Additional Program Added j I • Additional Optimization t i SPORTS FIELD K-8 SCHOOL LEARNING GARDEN TOWN HALL COMMUNITY COMMONS SENIOR CENTER 8/16/2018 5 8/16/2018 . 6 8/16/2018 Table# / I 7 Microbrewery Culinary Kitchen Recreational Rental Game Area Conference Room -- Play Area -1-..Jj.J""' _ ___.. Flexible/Multi-use space --"" -:.~ rr.m I I ' . . -r-I ' -~!.~ ··-=:~~ I ---__ -r --, ;;. II l ---.. ~ . ~-­. w~~ Welcome Area Cafe/Pub Rooftop Lounge & Roof Deck 8/16/.2018 ' 8 CUBBERLEY CO-DESIGN ft CITY OF WPALOALTO Palo .Alto Uniti,·d S.-h,Hll Di~1 rict PHASE 1 PREP Dovelop workplan nnd cmgagt?mc:nt p1 oces; L~ARN Engage wrth st~lcehold rs and Pvo11luc"te c'usting con munity assets PROC. RAM Est..Jbli~h pt"09ram mix: ;md dev.elop thr~e progJ.lm diag1ams PHASE 2 DESIGN Develop conceptual designs DOCUMENT Draft Master Plan Document COMMENT Public reviow and comments FINISH MASTER PLAN ARCHrTECTURAL DESIGN TO FOLLOW ~ Assets, N•eds, and Programming Brainstorm V (late Septemberi / / /8 Programming Vision / ~---S Design Scenario Development 2----s Draft Master Plan Evaluation concordia ---., .... ~. ..... [' ~;;; -~ E!!i , 55 l . . - ,~, I • ~. . 8/16/2018 9 Community Stakeholders Needs and Goals City of Palo Alto Constraints, Needs and Goals PAUSD Constrrnnts, Needs, and Goals ·-"""""'-..~4 ....... --~--------w ··--·· ........... __ ,_.,., _____ ,,_ .. __ .. ··--··-·---·;.-....... -·-·--··· -·-.. ·--· ... ___ .... , .. ·~-.• -..... ,._n-.. -._ .. __ .,,_ ..... _, .. _, .. _ ::.;:-:~:-.!=.;:--....;!::=:-... ·--..... .- Secondary School Subcommittee ... ---· ""' .... ,_ + PALOALn>UttffDKotOCLDl&l'hCT 91RATEOIC PLAN f.••pld ••rn nn """""'"""'_,,,,,__.,...,,., _ 8/16/.2018 ' 10 ' lcom~ME~ \ ill \.loo\ ~ \llu l<& Placed Before Meet1Dg ~ Received at Meeting 45 CUBBERLEY CO-DESIGN Project Information Palo Alto l.'nificd School Di-,u il r • CITY OF PALO ALTO concordia About the Cubberley Site The Cubberley site is 35-acre site near the southeastern border of Palo Alto and is the last, largest parcel of publicly-owned land in the City that has a near-term opportunity for redeYclopment for community benefit. The Palo i\lto Unified School District (P.c\USD) owns 27 acres of the site, and the rest is owned by the City of Palo ,\Ito. The site was home to Cubberley High School from 1956 to 1979, when it closed clue to declined school enrollment. In 1990, the site reopened as Cubberley Community Center. The City operates Cubberley through a lease ag reement with P1\USD. The Center is home to over thirty permanent tenants and provides hourly rental space for special events. 111c programs at the site include early childhood education, artist studios, three dance studios, language classes, martial arts, sports, health sen ·ices, and many other programs. These service-providers depend on Cubberley for its affordable rents and the benefits of having other community programs and rcntable spaces nearby. Why does it need a Master Plan? Cubberlc:y is a valuable asset to the community and to the School District. The buildings on the site are coming to an encl of their functional life and it is time for new facilities to be planned so Cubberley can continue to sen"e the community in the long-term. The master planning process \vill study ways that the site can provide new and improved facilities for the programs at the Cubberley Community Center while also planning for future school use on the site. What are the goals of the Project? The ultimate goal is to create a flexible and adaptable master plan for the Cubberley site that accommodates the short-term, medium-term, and long-term needs of the School District, the City, and the community at large. The master plan will illustrate future facilities on the site, demonstrating both form and function. It will include a phasing plan that will show the order of construction and demolition that will best accommodate program continuity. If successful, the School District and the City will adopt the plan and cooperate on plan implementation. ('Q-. 1' E -.:isl111g )1/t f>!a11 Current Tenants: .6-crne l:ducolion Cenler .Ari of L1'-1u-19 .l\r 11' ts Sludios AJer-iidJ~ Br01nv'y'ne Colifornio Lo1.1, l~svisi.x1 Cohforn10 Pops Orchestio Cc:rr:i101 _ !he.rap~,· 1-leort· for L1f1:: Children s Preschool Con/er c1-1ines0 for Chi isr Olv uf r'olo .Alto -OCS C ~bbcr C-'Y Center Cffico Dunce Conr1ecl1on D::::11ce fvlog1c Do nee Vision Friend:, of tl1e Polo Allo L1brc11v Ger1ius <ios Gooci f\le1qt1b or tvlcnlt~ssori I lisloric So.::1el\ Hua ~uonQ Chinese ~'ec:v.::lil-1<;.J Po.:::rn Polo .Allo I lislo11col Sociely P.:..1lu .L\llo f lurnone Socielv Polo Allo Clicwnt.:x.:r Orches lr.::1 Ir nnginol1on School Iv'/ Goal [clucolio1-1 Living VV1sci0r n Schoo1 tvloke X fv1clocly':, Music tvhnoritv • rO)ec l Polo Allo Soccer Ronger foekwonclo RE.A.Cl-I Silicon Vc:llev Korote Slonford Socce1· ClulJ Zohor How did this project come about? Community members came together to form the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee in 2012 to study the current conditions and the future opportunities at Cubberley. In working groups dedicated to School Needs, Community Needs, Facilities, and Finance, the committee engaged the City, the School District, and Cubberley tenants to analyze possible outcomes for the site. Their final report recommended that the best outcome would be for the City and the School Disa:ict to come together to commission a master plan that accommodates the needs of the community center and a potential future school, with potential for shared- use facilities. The City and School Board have done just that. After an 8-month long Request for Proposals process, the City and School District jointly selected and hired Concordia to lea<l the master planning process. What will the process look like? Concordia will work with the community in a "Co-Design Process." This will entail four, iterative community meetings \vhere community-members will work together to identify needs, propose opportunities, discuss options, and generally guide tl1e master-planning process towards win-win solutions. At each meeting, participants will engage in one to two activities designed to gather pertinent information and perspectives on key project decisions. The first meeting, planned for October 4th at the Cubberley Pavilion, will focus on community assets, nee<ls, goals, and ideation about the future program and potential joint uses. At the second meeting, participants will work to evaluate program options and hone in on the program vision for the site. The third meeting will focus on site design, and the look and feel of the buildings on site. 1\t the fourth and final meeting, participant· will evaluate and respond to the draft master plan. Following this meeting and concurrent plan review processes, Concordia \Vill revise the plan and deliver the final master plan for the site. See the following page for the process timeline. E_,:a111ple ro1J111111m(J meetwgs r1rlmfles Process Timeline PHASE 1 --EP1-\RE I 1\jQ LE" IY' Concordia will de\•elop the work-plan, including stakeholder and community engagement plan, review all relevant information and plans, conduct initial stakeholder outreach, and e\'aluate community assets and needs. Through the Co-design process, Concordia, the School District, the City, and the community will establish the vision and goals for the project, explore program options and joint use possibilities, create three program scenario diagrams, and then hone in on a preferred progra m scenario for the site. PHASE 2 DESIGN Building on the program phase, the design phase will focus on concepnial design options to accommodate the program and fit contextually within the neighborhood, ultimately arri\'ing at a preferred design option. DOCUMENT Concordia will draft the Cubberlev t.Iaster Plan Report based on the chosen conceptual design. COMMENT The draft document will be reYicwed by the community at Meeting ..J. and by the City and PAUSD Commissions, and other relevant Boards and Councils. FINISH Concordia will integrate all comments into the Final Cubberley Master Plan. The plan will serve as the basis for architectural design. ! \ - L1 - r Al rr~eet111gs will tok.e ploce at l pm at tl1e Cubberley Povil1on €9 Community Meeting l Early October V1s1on Gools orxJ Program @ Community Meeting 2 N .Jvernber l st Hor11ng tl1e Progrorn vision 3 Community Meeting 3 January )4tl1 Design Scenario Developrnent 4 Community Meeting 4 Moy 9t1-1 Rev1ev11 Drott Moster Pion ·• i1~ 1. l"'"'"'"~ .. 0?"'- [ } Placed Before Meeting { ] Received at Meeting My name is Monica Williams. I am here on behalf of the members of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, based at Mitchell Park. I started playing with 10 people about 4 years ago. We founded our club 2 years ago with-6"5' members9'since last November, when you so graciously honored us with a proclamation supporting our activities, we have grown to over 350 members, 150 of whom are Palo Alto residents. Unfortunately, since there are as yet no permanent Pickleball courts, we still have to put up and take down portable nets every time we play. We've been working with the Parks and Recreation Commission for over two years now, to try to get dedicated pickleball courts. In response to their requests, we have provided significant amounts of data -membership figures, number of players and hours that they play, costs of converting one tennis court into 4 pickleball courts, etc. In addition, we have shared information about new pickleball courts being built throughout the Bay Area: the cities of Santa Cruz and Foster City have them. San Francisco has just built 6, and work is underway to build two permanent courts at Rengstorff Park in Mountain View. The number of pickleball tournaments throughout the country is growing fast, In fact, the Indian Wells Tennis Garden near Palm Springs will be hosting the National Pickleball Championships this year and has signed a contract to host them for the next 5 years. Within 15 minutes of opening registration, the tournament was full with 2000 entrants. Pickleball is no longer is geared only to seniors; we have 5.0 tennis players who've joined our membership and children as young as 10 years old. But as of yet, we have failed to make any headway with the Parks & Recreation Commission. We know land in Palo Alto is scarce, and pickleball is noisy, but we are focusing on an ideal location away from residences -the 3 existing dilapidated tennis courts, next to the Magical Bridge Playground. Every weekday we have, on average, 40 people playing or learning to play pickleball. On Saturdays and Sundays the numbers double. [To convert only one of these to pickleball, and stripe 2 of the tennis courts for multi use at the same time as they are resurfaced would be at minimal cost and our club is willing to help with the funding.] I just wanted to make you all aware that many Palo Alto residents are unhappy that, despite doing everything that has been asked of us in terms of gathering information, there appears to be no progress toward Permanent pickleball courts. _I hope that I have better news to report after the next Commission meeting. Thank you for your time. Greetings City Council Members, So I have been apprised of the complaint that Elizabeth Wong has with the under parked design for 620 Emerson St. to expand the Nobu Restaurant. I don't think we should approve any more under parked structures, period. However, it seems there is some lack of integrity here, as Ms. Wong's building is under parked as well. Since she wants a PASZ opinion, I can only speak for myself, but we are FOR all buildings being fully parked . .... -== ; Suzanne Keehn PASZ Steering Committee ~~~~60nne St. -<1 ~ y(/~ .. / Y.. tl~ tf'P-6 ~ Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency Statement from Tom Francis, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Before the Palo Alto City Council About the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board)'s "Draft Final Bay- Delta Plan Update," (Plan) Which Could Severely Reduce the Water Supply for Residents and Businesses in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties August20,2018 BAWSCA is a state-authorized agency that represents the interests of the 26 water suppliers who purchase two-thirds of the water produced by the San Francisco Regional (Hetch Hetchy) Water System (System), which is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Palo Alto is one of those water suppliers. BAWSCA backs the staff recommended action being considered by the Palo Alto City Council tonight. The resolution crafted by staff supports a negotiated settlement process and aligns with the approach embraced by the California Department of Water Resources. On July 6th, the State Board released its "Draft Final Bay-Delta Plan Update." If implemented, the Plan could seriously reduce water supply during the next drought; forcing severe water reductions for the 1.8 million residents, 40,000 businesses and community agencies in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, including in Palo Alto. BAWSCA understands the value of the Bay-Delta ecosystem and recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable. BAWSCA supports the objectives of the Plan, however we have major concerns with its details. BAWSCA's analysis indicates that if this proposal is implemented, water users could be required to reduce average per person water use to 41 gallons a day during a drought, from the recent pre-drought level of 79 gallons per day, and for some people, to 25 gallons per day or less. This severe water cutback could threaten jobs as business activity might be reduced or prevented. Community development might be delayed, and new housing might not be built. A community without enough water for fully operational businesses, hospitals and public institutions is unsustainable. Fortunately, there is a sound, reasonable alternative to the State Board's Plan. The SFPUC has proposed, and BAWSCA supports, a science-based alternative that will meet the environmental objectives without an unrealistically low water supply for current water users. The alternative plan can be a basis for voluntary settlement negotiations. BAWSCA supports the objective of the State Board's Bay-Delta Plan, opposes details of the Board's proposed unilateral Plan for the Tuolumne River, and is encouraged to see that the State Board intends to delay action on its Plan. A delay will allow more time for the development of a voluntary, negotiated settlement agreement. Therefore, BAWSCA supports Palo Alto staff's recommended action before the Council tonight. "" 'IJ'I' l'Utlrrh 155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, • San Mateo, CA 94402 • ph 650 349 3000 • fx 650349 8395 • www.bawsca.org August 15, 2018 TO: STA TE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S REQUEST TO INCREASE RATES FOR ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN SCHOOLS AND STATE PARKS (A.18-07-020) Summary On July 30, 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its Electric Transportation application for schools and state parks with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The application requests an increase in rates of $7.4 million for the following electric vehicle pilot programs: • Schools: Installation of electric vehicle charging stations in specific schools in Alameda, Fresno, and San Joaquin counties. Along with charging stations and related utility infrastructure, PG&E will host educational events and provide information to increase awareness and knowledge of clean transportation. • State Parks: Installation of electric vehicle charging stations and related utility infrastructure at select California state parks for use by both state park fleet vehicles and park visitors. Background PG&E's application will support California's goal of increasing the number of electric vehicle charging stations and will help promote the adoption of electric vehicles across the state. Schools and parks are both highly visible locations where people come to learn and observe. Installing electric vehicle charging stations at these locations not only provides easy access to students, employees and the public, but also creates a platform to educate the public on how the use of electric vehicles can benefit California. How will PG&E's application affect me? -n£2 Many customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, tr@>missiali and distribution services. Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential bundled non-CARE cczsto~sing 500 kWh per month would increase $111.59 to $111.61, or 0.02 percent. ~ r-..,, '"' f'T'l-0 0 :::o.l> Actual impacts will vary depending on energy usage. :x• :a=-c.no :x cl> How will PG&E's application affect customers who buy electrlclty from a third party? "!'-} =:::~ Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distriWtio~ices from PG&E. On average, these customers will see an increase of 0.02 percent. _, > Departing Load customers do not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, they are required to pay certain charges as required by law or CPUC decision. These customers will not be impacted by this application. How. do I find out more about PG&E's proposals? If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-660-6789 • 1¥'111l¥J(tl 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Electric Transportation Schools and State Parks Application (A.18-07-020) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files office by appointment only. For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's application (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. CPUC process This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary 1 hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties. These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting. The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) may review this application. ORA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about ORA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www.ora.ca.gov. Stay informed If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the application or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Email: publlc.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Mail: CPUC Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282 If you are contacting the CPUC, please include the application number (Electric Transportation Schools and State Parks Application; A.18-07-020). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate CPUC staff and will become public record. 2