Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180910plCC701-32 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: 9/10/2018 Document dates: 8/22/2018 – 8/29/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:2018 Zero Waste Plan on 8/27/18 Agenda   Dear Council,    The City's "Zero Waste" objectives are laudable, and the proposed plan includes many good ideas. I have two comments that I ask you to consider.     1) Require more transparency re final disposition of blue-container recyclables, e.g., where and how plastic, glass, paper, etc. are transported after sorting at GreenWaste's facilities and how they are recycled and re-used; and    2) Require analysis and planning to develop a waste-to-energy facility (anaerobic digester or other technology) to process yard waste, food and other compostables on site of the former dump near Byxbee park that voters set aside in 2011 for this purpose; this will avoid having to truck green waste miles down the freeway and pay someone else to process, can produce biogas energy, and can provide a local compost source (the new sewage sludge plant is a good start but not a complete solution).     Thank you,    Karen Porter  Greer Road, Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:2018 Zero Waste Plan on 8/27/18 Agenda   Dear Council,    The City's "Zero Waste" objectives are laudable, and the proposed plan includes many good ideas. I have two comments that I ask you to consider.     1) Require more transparency re final disposition of blue-container recyclables, e.g., where and how plastic, glass, paper, etc. are transported after sorting at GreenWaste's facilities and how they are recycled and re-used; and    2) Require analysis and planning to develop a waste-to-energy facility (anaerobic digester or other technology) to process yard waste, food and other compostables on site of the former dump near Byxbee park that voters set aside in 2011 for this purpose; this will avoid having to truck green waste miles down the freeway and pay someone else to process, can produce biogas energy, and can provide a local compost source (the new sewage sludge plant is a good start but not a complete solution).     Thank you,    Karen Porter  Greer Road, Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Wendy Hopfenberg <wendyhop@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Request to Modify 2018 Zero Waste Plan and GreenWaste Contract Negotiations Dear Council Members,  I fully support Bob Wenzlau’s thoughtful letter below for council consideration.  I was concerned to learn of some of the  endpoints for all our tremendous efforts toward recycling assuming it was all for good ends.    Thank you,  Wendy Hopfenberg          ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Bob Wenzlau <bob@wenzlau.net>  Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 1:34 PM  Subject: Request to Modify 2018 Zero Waste Plan and GreenWaste Contract Negotiations  To: "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>    Honorable Council Members,    I request that you amend Item 9237 “Acceptance of the 2018 Zero Waste Plan” now on the consent calendar for August 27, 2018 to make the following important adjustments:    1. Council should insert into the proposed upcoming negotiations with GreenWaste a contract amendment to audit and report on the disposition of recovered materials within six months in order to validate cradle-to-grave whether the disposition of diverted materials are acceptable to environmental and social norms. 2. Council should request an update within six months to the Zero Waste plan that corrects diversion rates in order not to accept as “diverted” any waste materials where the management falls short of environmental or social norms.   As the press has reported, China no longer accepts our papers or plastics driven primarily by the high levels of contamination. Countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and India have become the new receiving destinations. Recently Vietnam stopped receiving after becoming glutted. "One- dollar-a-day" workers in developing countries hand-sorting contamination from our separated paper and plastic is expected by GreenWaste. Ecology Action of Berkeley recently reported that bales of paper and plastic are now incinerated or dumped in the sea. As the recycling service for the City of Berkeley, they cleverly placed GPS trackers inside bales and tracked their fate.     Our recovery facility GreenWaste does not audit the final disposition of recovered materials, and instead is grappling with the flow to keep materials flowing after the collapse of the Chinese market. We basically do not know where our materials go and the conditions along the way.    A this time we do not know the fate of nearly 50% of our diverted recovered materials - the paper and plastics - and this must be factored into both our future contract with GreenWaste to 2 close this knowledge gap, and then into our Zero Waste Plan to reflect the findings of any audit of the disposition of waste, and then plan accordingly.     GreenWaste Contract Negotiation. As stated above, please modify the contract negotiation with GreenWaste to close the knowledge gap the disposition of materials “cradle-to-grave” monitoring any processing step for environmental and social impact as they finally arrive to end use. This is properly a duty of our contractor that represents proper environmental and social management of Palo Alto’s diverted materials.    For example, the current practice in a foreign country could include several steps: the mixed paper might be hand sorted to remove contaminants, then be processed to make a paper pulp, then the pulp ingested to make a consumer paper product. Environmental and social monitoring would be appropriate at each step. While the economic circumstances of developing economies are different, there are minimal work conditions that Palo Alto must require GreenWaste prove. Equally, environmental measures must be shown to be acceptable. Our recovered paper and plastic should not be burned in dirty incinerators, dumped at sea, or be processed where water pollution is generated. International norms already developed in the garment and e-waste that should be extended to material diversion.     GreenWaste would trigger an audit upon selection of a new destination of our materials, and occur annually thereafter. While GreenWaste would reasonably claim that the knowledge of destination is a business asset providing competitive advantage, these concerns can be mitigated with third party auditors and nondisclosure agreements. This obviously would be easier as other customers of GreenWaste would demand the same, and as this became a norm in our state. However, Palo Alto can take the lead here.    Zero Waste Plan. While it is likely prudent to adopt the update to the Zero Waste Plan, I would request that an update be generated concurrent with the findings about the fate of our waste. There is urgency if our wastes are in fact being handled in a manner that would not meet our standards for environmental and social justice. Some of the repercussions to the Zero Waste Plan are as follows:    1. Adjust our Zero Waste performance to be true to the actual fate of the recovered materials. If paper or plastics are burned or dumped in the sea, this does not constitute zero waste. We must have a ZW plan that rather than showing a line always tipping to greater recovery, is in fact valid to environmentally sound disposition of these materials. A chart below shows where we might be if the outcome is that our current materials are not actually being recovered.   Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   3   2. Inform our community of what is not recyclable so we can adjust our purchasing and sorting. For example, single film plastic (salad bags etc.) now are 10 percent by weight of the municipal stream, and these are waste - they are not recycled. We tell residents to put them in the blue bin, but the fowl the recovery operations as well as have a disposition as waste. Our communication and zero waste performance must match what is actually being recovered. 3. Work with our Assemblyman Berman to ask that all recovery operations validate the end use of validated and environmentally sound management. This must affect all communities and all businesses operating. Now the “markets” are proprietary and hidden. Staff certainly should lift this issue up to neighboring communities also using the same facility for processing our blue bin ingredients. 4. Begin collaborating with our region to develop alternative processes for plastics and waste papers. The days of relying on global markets may have ended. Unfortunately the scale of our waste production will likely demand a strategy of energy recovery. In our sister cities like Linköping, we have seen efficient recovery systems that generate heating and electricity. 5. Adjust our climate action plan to reflect the reality of our current waste management system. We should not have a climate report that does not factor the footprint of our diverted materials.   I am confident that given the direction to Staff they can return with a valid zero waste plan as this is a value our community holds. I appreciate all of Staff's interest and support on this topic, but equally I felt a role as a community member to push an issue that had not been adequately highlighted.      I hope you will consider these thoughts.     Sincerely yours,    Bob Wenzlau              ‐‐     Bob Wenzlau  bob@wenzlau.net  650‐248‐4467          ‐‐     1 Brettle, Jessica From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 5:39 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:August 27, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #7: Animal Shelter Operating Agreement with Pets in Need Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    August 27, 2028    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      AUGUST 27, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7  ANIMAL SHELTER OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH PETS IN NEED      Dear City Council:    The City of Palo Alto and Pets in Need have different objectives.    The City's objective as stated in the first paragraph of the first page of the staff report (ID #8778) under "Background" is to "provide animal control and sheltering services for the purpose of ensuring the safety of people and animals, providing for the proper care and sheltering of abandoned or neglected domestic animals, licensing domestic animals and providing humane disposal of animals when necessary."    “The mission of Pets In Need is to advance the no-kill movement, reduce pet homelessness, and find every dog and cat a loving home ... by rescuing cats and dogs from public shelters in the Bay Area and beyond when they are in danger of being euthanized due to space or financial limitations.” (http://www.petsinneed.org/our-story/) You need to ensure that any City funds spent for the proposed Animal Shelter Operating Agreement with Pets in Need is for the purpose of the local Palo Alto objective of fulfilling the State of California requirement for cities and counties stated above, and not for Pets in Need's narrow mission that is for "the Bay Area and beyond". Animal control is a general government function. It is misleading to describe General Fund money used for the animal control as a "subsidy". The General Fund money used for the Airport is a subsidy, but I have never seen staff describe that transfer of funds as a subsidy, although the 2 transfer of money from the General Fund to the Airport benefits a smaller number of users, most of whom are not from Palo Alto, than the General Fund money used for the Animal Shelter that benefits all Palo Alto residents whether they own a pet or not, except for services to residents of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills that are paid for by those government agencies. When did the City issue Honda a Conditional Use Permit for the lease of City-owned land zoned PF? When did the Architectural Review Board review the parking lot design for Honda's parking lot on City-owned land zoned PF? Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Animal Shelter To our City Council, I hope you will approve of the partnership with Pets in Need to keep our animal shelter. Working together does save quite a bit of money. Also Pets in Need is an organization, a caring and well run organization, with a very long track record. I believe it is a Win Win for our city. We need a full service animal shelter in the mid-Peninsula. Suzanne Keehn, 4076 Orme St. 94306 1 Brettle, Jessica From:IdaRose Sylvester <idarose@siliconvalleylink.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:43 AM To:Council, City Cc:Hwangbo, Sachi; Washington, Jeannette; Macartney, Cody Subject:The Time is NOW: Palo Alto Animal Services + Pets in Need Dear Palo Alto City Council    I urge you to move forward tonight on the Palo Alto Animal Services + Pets in Need partnership.    I am a Mountain View resident, impacted over the last seven years by Mountain View's move to SVACA. I am  also an active PAAS volunteer, having fostered over two dozen kittens in the last year, and have adopted  several of my wonderful animals from PAAS.    As a Mountain View resident, the service I have received as a Mountain View resident from SVACA during time  sensitive emergencies has been bad over the last seven years. When I reported a dog locked in a hot car, I was  told it would take hours for someone to arrive, which was way beyond the time the dog would survive. When I  reported a coyote kill in the middle of the road, so that the public hazard could be cleaned up, and the poor  pet scanned for a chip, I was told that they would "try" to roll a truck that day, and it was only noon. Perhaps  because Mountain View sits at the edge of the territory, or perhaps because the agency hasn't expanded staff  adequately to absorb a new city, we do not get what we need in the moment of extreme need.    As a volunteer, PAAS runs an exemplary program that values the LOCAL community. PAAS supports its service  district children doing community service, Scouts doing major projects, retirees who want to give their time  but would be burdened by driving far, and the other local community members who care about our animals,  and people, in OUR area. The closeness of the shelter enables local community involvement, and the staff is  incredibly dedicated to accepting a wide range of volunteers, creating a win win situation for both sides.    As an adopter, I have noted the incredible personalized attention PAAS gives pets. PAAS knows each animal,  and works hard to make the best match between adopter and pet. PAAS also does remarkably well with  "special needs" pets, never giving up on older pets, those with handicaps, or even those who need to be  adopted in groups. Our community benefits from the attention and care only a shelter for our community can  do.    I have had the pleasure to meet the Pets in Need team, and they are dedicated, incredibly experienced in  shelter management, and passionate about working with PAAS to support our community. The fit is right, and  the time is NOW to act to move this agreement forward.    Thank you,    IdaRose Sylvester  Mountain View resident      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 8:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jo Hamilton <johamilton46@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, August 23, 2018 12:18 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Animal Shelter To the members of the Palo Alto City Council Hello. My name is Jo Hamilton. Although I am not a Palo Alto resident, I have had over 20 years of experience working closely with both Palo Alto Animal Services (PAAS) and Pets in Need (PIN) as a member through the years of several rescue groups. I am also a recipient of the Jefferson Award from KPIX TV. I write because I feel that having PIN take over from PAAS would be a huge disservice for the animals and the residents in Palo Alto, and surrounding communities and because I think the City Council has not been made fully aware of all the ramifications of the decision of PIN taking over PAAS. For reasons I will explain below, I believe that Palo Alto would lose these services if the operation of Animal Services were turned over to PIN: • the low cost spay/neuter clinic that cares for animals in a timely manner. Any rescue group, especially at this time of the year, is overwhelmed with baby animals, especially kittens. Before these young animals can be adopted, all the rescue groups, as well as the larger shelters, require that the animals be spayed and neutered. There is a 6 to 8 week wait to get an appointment for spay/neuter if you can get through to a person at PIN. That is too long a wait time for rescue animals especially kittens. People are looking to adopt animals when they are little and cute. PAAS is wonderful about working with rescue groups to get the animals spayed and neutered as expeditiously as their schedule permits. Rescue groups are not the only beneficiaries of the low cost spay/neuter clinic and the Wednesday vaccination clinics. The low income residents in the area want to protect their pets too but going to a veterinary hospital is often cost prohibitive. I called a couple of pet hospitals in the area and found the cost of a dog spay ranges from $500 to over $900 and there would be an office visit (between $60- $80) as well. Most people want to be responsible and not allow their animals to bring unwanted animals in to the world but they can’t afford the vets prices. Feral cats are also beneficiaries of the PAAS spay/neuter clinic. The shelter program helps keep the feral cat population under control. PIN does not spay/neuter feral cats. I called and asked. All the rescue groups are fighting every year to rescue, and find homes for kittens born to feral Moms and to TNR (trap,neuter and release) the adults. Female cats can have up to 3 litters averaging 2 to 4 kittens per litter per year. Feral cats help keep the rodent population in check. Imagine the population explosion if the feral cats are not spayed or neutered in a timely manner. • taking in and caring for all kinds of animals (not just dogs and cats) that are strays or owner-surrenders that come to their doors. PIN does not accept stray animals, owner surrenders, or animals that had previously City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 8:15 AM 2 been adopted from PIN, as their phone message states. Rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, birds are never accepted at PIN. They are sent to PHS. or somewhere else as long as they become someone else’s problem. • the low cost vaccination clinics every Wednesday Noon–1:00, where people are lined up out the door. On Wednesday, June 20th, the vaccination clinic saw at least 35 people with their animals for low cost vaccinations and lasted much longer than the one hour that was scheduled. I know because I was there! PIN has never offered such a program. I also know that PAAS shelter staff have made upgrades to the shelter (eg the dog play yard and the rabbit cages) and for the animals, out of their own pockets or from citizens’ donations because the city manager wouldn’t budget funds. As a rescue person, I am a long-time, active user of PAAS’ spay/neuter clinic, the low cost vaccination clinic and we’ve also worked with PAAS to help long term shelter dogs who were being overlooked at the shelter find their family at our Adoption Fairs. Look at the pictures on the highlight wall. Several are the result of the co-operation between our rescue group and the shelter. Many dogs have been rescued from other overcrowded shelters where they would have been euthanized. We count on those services that PAAS currently provides. We are not the only rescue group in this position. All these services will be gone if PIN takes over the shelter. I have worked with Pets In Need which is a private adoption agency with a shelter building. They have to report to no one in the community about what they do, what animals they help and don’t help or what they do with those animals. I know people who have brought animals to Pets In Need because they can no longer care for them or that they found wandering the streets, only to be told they had to take them to Peninsula Humane Society because PIN doesn’t take “stray” animals or “owner surrender” (even if originally adopted from PIN!). They “cherry pick “ the most adoptable dogs and cats from shelters so their adoption stats look good and all the others “be damned”. What about all the other animals, rabbits, birds, ducks, turtles, snakes, etc. that Animal Services cares for but PIN doesn’t accept? Will they just be euthanized, rereleasted, shipped out of the county to be someone else’s problem? For quite a while, local shelters were not releasing animals to PIN because of PIN’s unhealthy medical practices such as bringing in animals and mixing them with the general population without an isolation period. I know of at least two outbreaks of distemper within PIN where many dogs died needlessly. No dogs would have died had all the dogs in PIN been vaccinated for distemper before the sick dogs had arrived or if the incoming dogs had been in isolation for two weeks before joining the general population. PIN calls itself a no-kill shelter but that is not true—talk to the vets. They have euthanized for space. As a member of a rescue group, I went into PIN to get a copy of a spay certificate for a dog who had been spayed at PIN and was subsequently surrendered to us. Had I called on the phone as I had done several times earlier, I would still be waiting. The staff had no way of finding the spay certificate except by manually going through binders, page by page to find the name of the animal. None of the community spays had been entered into a computer data base. Not having those records accessible electronically in this day and age is unforgivable. After at least an hour, the certificate was found. I asked for a copy of the doctor’s notes about the surgery. I was told that they would have to ask the doctor. I’m still waiting. What were they trying to hide by not releasing the surgical notes? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 8:15 AM 3 I have sat and watched with the hopes that the members of the City Council would come to realize that having PIN take over the PAAS shelter would be a dreadful mistake both for the City and the animals it has been serving. Residents of Palo Alto have said they want the shelter to continue but that will not continue if PIN takes over. PAAS will become an extension of the ineptly run private business of Pets In Need. I met a woman on the Palo Alto City Council just outside The Pet Place recently. We got to talking about animals and she told me about the plans for PIN to take over PAAS. She said PAAS was never open on Saturday and Sunday because they couldn’t afford to open it on the weekends. She was in total disbelief when I told her the shelter is open every Saturday except holidays, and has been for years. She had no idea that the shelter did the low cost vaccination clinics every Wednesday from Noon–1pm (and usually longer because so many people came). She said PIN was the only applicant who came forward to take over the shelter [as if that was a really good reason to turn the shelter over to a less than responsible, knowledgeable business]. If the only applicant who came to look after your children was a homeless, drug addict who had been convicted of theft and neglect, would it be okay to leave your children with that person? I’m sure you would say “No!” Then why is it acceptable to turn over the care and wellbeing of the four-footed residents of Palo Alto to a less than competent private business because they were the only ones who applied when the residents of the community have said that they wanted the Animal Services to continue? That same Council member told me that everyone she had spoken to had said how wonderful it would be to have PIN running the shelter. I know there were many people who spoke at the Council meetings and with messages on line and articles in the newspaper in 2016 and 2017 to say what a mistake turning PAAS over to PIN would be. How can someone who is unaware of the workings of PAAS, who obviously did not attend Council meetings or read the minutes of those meetings or read the newspaper, vote on its future? How many other council members are misinformed about PAAS? I have watched Jim Keene, Palo Alto city manager, work diligently for at least the past six years to close the shelter because it “costs too much to operate.” I have watched as he collected his six-figure salary while never putting a line item in any of the last (at least) six city budgets for upgrades and improvements to the Animal Services facility, and very little for maintenance and salaries, or to replace staff. I have watched him come in at successive Council meetings with larger and larger amounts the shelter was costing the City because the previous amount didn’t sway the Council members to close the shelter. Meanwhile he brought no ideas or did he work to find other ways to reduce costs and made no effort to work with other cities to share the costs. I have watched as this same person accepted pay raises for himself and his staff and hand out thousands of dollars for a mobile home park for low-income residents, the Children’s Museum and Zoo, to help fund a workforce housing project and to remodel the City Council Chambers. I understand he found $60,000 for Pets In Need to do a feasibility study. Those funds could have been used to get new contracts with neighboring cities and to upgrade the shelter. PIN asked for at least $5 million from Palo Alto to renovate the shelter. Now $3 million dollars is being set aside for affordable housing. But he couldn’t find the funds to help the shelter due to contracts that he allowed to lapse and didn’t put any real effort into restoring them and making PAAS the shining star of the city that it should be. Why is a city manager who left his last two positions under the cloud of withholding and manipulating pertinent information from the people he was serving, being allowed to force the destruction of such a valuable city City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 8:15 AM 4 service? For one of the richest cities in the Bay area, to allow this to happen is a travesty and the Council members should be embarrassed. Pets In Need is not up to the task of (and is frankly not interested in) providing many essential services that Palo Alto Animal Services provides. Turning over Animal Services’ operations will likely result in many animals being shuffled off to other agencies, euthanized or worse. And it need not be so: at least some council members are perhaps unaware of the number and level of services offered by PAAS, of the low quality of work done by PIN and of the possibility of contracting with neighboring cities. PAAS is a city service just like roads and housing and I urge the Council to give it the place it deserves when prioritizing funds. It’s not too late to do right by the animals! Sent from my iPad 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bridget Mckenna <bridgetofthebridge@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:A Anti- displacement ordinance Hello my name is Bridget Duffy, journalist and political candidate. I have been chronicling an unfolding humanitarian  crisis, in regard to unreasonable, unjustifiable and inhumane rent increases and no fault evictions in San Mateo County,  currently the richest county in the U.S., and the most expensive place to rent.     It is now common that hard working, law abiding, tax payers are sleeping under bushes and living out of their cars while  property owners make unprecedented profits off of their properties, many of which were confiscated from the public  during the ‘08 financial crisis, which was entirely man made and proven to be criminal.    This is a civil rights issue now.    Public officials have been acting in defense of private property rather than defending the rights of citizens, in violation to  the oath they have taken to defend the constitution, which clearly does NOT mention any obligation to protect private  sector profits.    It is my suggestion that law makers simply do the job they signed on to do, defend the public’s right to life, liberty and  the pursuit of happiness, all of which starts with a safe, secure, place to live.    The Anti‐ displacement Act does not infringe on private property rights. It simply states that rent increases and no fault  evictions that imperil civilians lives or livelihoods, by causing displacement, will not be backed up legally by the law.  It doesn’t tell property owners what they can or can not do, it just indicates that the state will not be backing up the  landlords legally anymore ( in such cases that apply), thus stemming the tide of homelessness, a condition caused  directly by aggressions rent increases and no fault evictions.    We live at a precipice. On one side is a revived and inclusive republic. On the other side a heartless empire. Which side  are you on?  Those among us now, you and I, will determine how this story ends. Many people have died and bled for this Republic,  won’t you use the authority given to you, to please, please help us, the citizens, we are lost and dying for lack of  affordable shelter.          Sent from my iPad  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Peter Brewer <peter@brewerfirm.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:AGAINST Just Cause Eviction and Mandatory Relocation Payments I regret that I am out of town and unable to attend this evening’s meeting. I would like to express my opposition to the proposed Just Cause Eviction and Mandatory Relocation Payment ordinances. Please don’t let Palo Alto become the next Bezerkley. Nothing in our democracy was intended to attempt to make all persons’ lifestyles and living accommodations equal. Some people work hard, get educated, and apply themselves with vigor. Those persons should enjoy the rewards of their hard work and ambition. The Government should not attempt to bestow equality on those who have not contributed equally. That is no way and nowhere the job of the Government. Peter Brewer Peter N. Brewer, Esq.  Brewer Offord & Pedersen LLP  2501 Park Blvd, 2nd Flr.  Palo Alto, CA 94306  (650) 327‐2900 x 12  www.BrewerFirm.com  BayAreaRealEstateLawyers.com    Real Estate Law – From the Ground Up®      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Pilar Lorenzana <pilar@siliconvalleyathome.org> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 2:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:Re: Agenda Item 8: Consideration and Adoption of an Ordinance and Emergency Ordinance Attachments:SVH_Letter_Final.pdf Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Councilmembers DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, and Wolbach: We write today to urge the City Council’s support for the staff recommendation to adopt an urgency ordinance that covers  evictions and tenant relocation assistance.  In addition to taking swift action to adopt an urgency ordinance this evening, we  respectfully request that the Council set the stage future conversations around the following potential strategies:  Incorporate a grace period. The ordinance should include a meaningful grace period prior to residents’ being evicted to  provide families ample opportunities to find commensurate housing in a severely constrained housing rental market.  Project size threshold. We urge the Council to consider expanding applicability of the ordinance to residential  developments of 10 units or more – a threshold reflected in ordinances in neighboring jurisdictions.   Conversion ordinance. We urge the Council to consider adopting a conversion ordinance to define a process and  expectations prior to the conversion of multi‐family residences from rental to ownership or from residential to non‐ residential uses. SV@Home is a nonprofit housing policy and advocacy organization dedicated to creating affordable housing opportunities in the  high‐cost Silicon Valley. We know that as a region we are not producing enough new homes to meet demand, and that the resulting  undersupply of housing is responsible for rising rents, displacement, and gentrification.  But we also know that even as we add units,  we are losing them.  Two steps forward, one step backwards.   The urgency ordinance was precipitated by the proposed conversion of the President Hotel Apartments from residential use to a  luxury boutique hotel, an action that will eliminate 75 naturally affordable homes in the heart of Palo Alto. The increased relocation  payments proposed in the ordinance are a step up from the current situation faced by the tenants.  As we have heard directly from  those impacted, this conversion will cause major hardship as they seek to find affordable options in one of the most expensive  housing markets in the nation. This is just the latest proposal to cause displacement. Palo Alto recently took action to avoid the potential loss of the Buena Vista  Mobilehome Park, which is home to 400 residents.  Having policies in place to protect residents from displacement and to  adequately compensate those who eventually are displaced is critically important.  Palo Alto does not have a significant source of  affordable housing.  Every affordable and naturally affordable home should be protected. We urge you to act tonight to preserve and protect vulnerable rental households and communities and we look forward to working  with you in the coming days and weeks to strengthen and improve tenant protections in the City. Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely, Pilar Lorenzana Deputy Director pilar@siliconvalleyathome.org (510) 255-1253 sv@home Board of Directors Ron Gonzales, Chair Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Janice Jensen, Vice Chair Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Kevin Zwick, Treasurer Housing Trust Silicon Valley Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Christine Carr Katie Ferrick LinkedIn Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Andrea Osgood Eden Housing Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL August 27, 2018 Honorable Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Councilmembers DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, and Wolbach: Re: Agenda Item 8: Consideration and Adoption of an Ordinance and Emergency Ordinance We write today to urge the City Council’s support for the staff recommendation to adopt an urgency ordinance that covers evictions and tenant relocation assistance. In addition to taking swift action to adopt an urgency ordinance this evening, we respectfully request that the Council set the stage future conversations around the following potential strategies: • Incorporate a grace period. The ordinance should include a meaningful grace period prior to residents’ being evicted to provide families ample opportunities to find commensurate housing in a severely constrained housing rental market. • Project size threshold. We urge the Council to consider expanding applicability of the ordinance to residential developments of 10 units or more – a threshold reflected in ordinances in neighboring jurisdictions. • Conversion ordinance. We urge the Council to consider adopting a conversion ordinance to define a process and expectations prior to the conversion of multi-family residences from rental to ownership or from residential to non- residential uses. SV@Home is a nonprofit housing policy and advocacy organization dedicated to creating affordable housing opportunities in the high-cost Silicon Valley. We know that as a region we are not producing enough new homes to meet demand, and that the resulting undersupply of housing is responsible for rising rents, displacement, and gentrification. But we also know that even as we add units, we are losing them. Two steps forward, one step backwards. The urgency ordinance was precipitated by the proposed conversion of the President Hotel Apartments from residential use to a luxury boutique hotel, an action that will eliminate 75 naturally affordable homes in the heart of Palo Alto. The increased relocation payments proposed in the ordinance are a step up from the current situation faced by the tenants. As we have heard directly from those impacted, this conversion Honorable Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council August 27, 2018 Re: Ordinance and Emergency Ordinance for Relocation Assistance for No-Fault Evictions Page 2 of 2 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.2261 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org will cause major hardship as they seek to find affordable options in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. This is just the latest proposal to cause displacement. Palo Alto recently took action to avoid the potential loss of the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park, which is home to 400 residents. Having policies in place to protect residents from displacement and to adequately compensate those who eventually are displaced is critically important. Palo Alto does not have a significant source of affordable housing. Every affordable and naturally affordable home should be protected. We urge you to act tonight to preserve and protect vulnerable rental households and communities and we look forward to working with you in the coming days and weeks to strengthen and improve tenant protections in the City. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Pilar Lorenzana Deputy Director 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Liza Vernazza <liza@lizavernazza.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Emergency Ordinance Dear Council Members,  It has been brought to my attention that you will be voting on an Emergency Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.68 of the  Municipal Code to Require, for Multifamily Housing Developments of 50 Units or More: Relocation Assistance for No‐ Fault Evictions or Cause for Eviction and Relocation Assistance for No‐Fault Evictions.  As a property owner, investor and an advocate for my investor clients, I would like to urge you to vote NO on this  Ordinance. I believe the relocation assistance for No‐Fault Evictions is excessive and will invite abuse by the tenant  communities. It’s a shame when a landlord cannot effectively evict a tenant who has proven to consistently not pay rent  in a timely fashion, not allow the landlord access to the unit and has proven to be a nuisance to the other tenants. And  now the landlord will have to pay them to move out. That is just not right.     Thank you for your attention to this matter. I agree that housing is a serious issue in our community, however, rent  control and excessive relocation assistance is not the answer.   With all the smart people we are surrounded with, I am certain a solution will present itself, but this is not it.      Regards,  Liza      Selling Fine Peninsula Homes Since 1988 Click here to see what my clients are saying...   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 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Colette Harp <harpathome@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Emergency Relocation Payments To Palo Alto City Council    I'm not sure why this would be the responsibility of landlords...most of us have paid for our buildings, taxes, repairs,  everything a home owner has to do....and we've paid for 30 years.  I have great sympathy for tenants and have had the  same tenants for over 20 yrs, and now the daughter who was raised in the back unit lives in our front unit.  So we have a  very good record with tenants and I'm wondering how this would affect us moving forward.  We don't allow pets, but  our newest tenant decided because she knows us so well, without our consent proceeded to get a dog.  It's in the  original lease no pets, but that lease was over after a year, so if we decided to ask her to leave for just cause would she  be our responsibility from here on out?  Maybe someone could get back to me on that....I'd appreciate some reasonable  input to this question if it's not too much trouble.  As landlords we are now very concerned about the outcome of these  meetings that different counties are having and what affect it may have on us in the future.    Thanks for your consideration    Sincerely    Colette Harp  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rushton, Jeremy <Jeremy.Rushton@cbnorcal.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Emergency Relocation Payments Dear Council members,    Hopefully this message finds you all well. I'd like to take this opportunity to voice my opposition to the rental  regulations that are to be disused tonight. It is a gross overreach of government to tell a property owner they  don't have the right exercise the expiration of a lease that was voluntarily signed by adults.    Leasing regulations such as these make the housing crisis worse. Rent control/eviction regulations simply  create more competition for new vacancies and thus mean higher prices. There isn't a single example of a rent  controlled California city with an equitable rental market. Whenever a local government adopts additional  leasing regulations, it gives owners more incentive to discriminate against tenant profiles who most would  assume intend to stay put longer than a year or so. (such as families)    Living in Palo Alto is not a right, but owning property is. Please don't take it upon yourselves to put a damaging  Band‐Aid on a broad issue like housing affordability. The evidence of failure is right in front of us all. Feelings  are not the foundation for good policy. You'll see tonight that feelings is all the tenant activists have to offer.     Best regards,      Jeremy Rushton    *Wire Fraud is Real*.  Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to  confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a  real estate contract via written or verbal communication.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Larry and April Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council, I urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. As a local housing provider, I value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents. I address my residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their needs. Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass displacements. Sincerely, Larry Alton 1 Brettle, Jessica From:G.K. Young <ypmanagement@outlook.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:20 AM To:Council, City Cc:G.K. Young Subject:RE: JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES AND RELOCATION PAYMENTS Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council, I urge you to reject the staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. As a local housing provider, I value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents. I address my residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their needs. I am grateful that the council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in October 2017. However, I am concerned that the current proposal you are considering Monday night will have similar consequences as enacting rent control and just cause eviction. If the City Council wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or renovations, the ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal. Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass displacements. I recommend the city work with local housing providers to explore a more balanced and targeted approach. Sincerely,   Gordon K Young, CCRM    YP MANAGEMENT  PO BOX 50846  PALO ALTO, CA 94303‐0670  650/740‐2624  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Claire Carew <clairecarew@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 4:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Just Cause Eviction Ordinances and Relocation Payments - REJECT THIS PROPOSAL Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,    I urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for  no‐fault evictions.    The council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in October 2017; however, the proposal you are  considering on Monday, August 27, 2018, will have consequences similar to enacting rent control and just cause  eviction.  If the City Council wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or renovations, the  ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal.       Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass  displacements.  Instead, the city and local housing providers should work together to explore a more balanced and  targeted approach.    Sincerely,    Claire Carew  1606 Edgewood Dr.  Palo Alto CA 94303  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Keller, Jeff <jeff@jkeller.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:JUST CAUSE EVICTION Dear Sirs:    Please do not pass the "Just Cause Eviction" regulation. The housing shortage is caused by the imbalance between jobs  and housing. It is not caused by individual property owners.    The "Just Cause Eviction" regulation will make housing more expensive for those least able to afford it ... renters. The  regulation does not encourage more rental properties. It discourages investment in rental properties.    The "Just Cause Eviction" passes on the cost of a government policy to individuals who are already helping to provide  more housing through their investments. This policy is akin to trying to reduce the cost of food by taxing grocery stores.   Please stop the "Just Cause Eviction" regulations.    Jeff Keller  2075 Louis Rd  Palo Alto, CA 94303    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Beverly Brockway <bev@bbrockway.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Just Cause Evictions Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council, I urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. As a local housing provider, I value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents. I address my residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their needs. I am grateful that the council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in October 2017. However, I am concerned that the current proposal you are considering Monday night will have similar consequences as enacting rent control and just cause eviction. If the City Council’s wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or renovations, the ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal. Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass displacements. We recommend the city to work with local housing providers to explore a more balanced and targeted approach. Sincerely, Beverly Brockway Robert Healy 1140 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim Massey <jimmasters8@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Just cause on agenda I urge you to hold off on this item until more review and study is done. Do not do a Ready, Fire, Aim  Thank you  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ken <lowdown1@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 8:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:just cause evictions I urge you to not past the emergency eviction bill that was inappropriately drafted behind closed doors. I am familiar  with the results on small landlords in SF and it has stiffed the small guy. What is the rational and cause behind such a  proposal? why was it done behind closed doors?    Thank you for your consideration      1 Brettle, Jessica From:pmcrent@aol.com Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Just cause/Manditory relocation on agenda Please do not implement the Just cause/ relocation policy without public discussion and study and resident's input. A knee jerk reaction in setting policy without proper public input is not productive. Paul McCarthy 3265 Kipling Street Palo Alto, Ca 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jim King <1988rth@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto City Council Considers Just Cause Eviction Ordinances and Relocation Payments Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council, I urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. As a local housing provider, I value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents. I address my residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their needs. I am grateful that the council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in October 2017. However, I am concerned that the current proposal you are considering Monday night will have similar consequences as enacting rent control and just cause eviction. If the City Council’s wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or renovations, the ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal. Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass displacements. We recommend the city to work with local housing providers to explore a more balanced and targeted approach. Sincerely,    David Wasserstein  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jimmy Lee <jilee2552@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto City Council Considers Just Cause Eviction Ordinances and Relocation Payments Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council, I urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. As a local housing provider, I value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents. I address my residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their needs. I am grateful that the council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in October 2017. However, I am concerned that the current proposal you are considering Monday night will have similar consequences as enacting rent control and just cause eviction. If the City Council’s wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or renovations, the ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal. Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass displacements. We recommend the city to work with local housing providers to explore a more balanced and targeted approach. Sincerely,    Jimmy Lee  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Betty Schink <bettys@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 11:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Proposal regarding just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council, I urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. As a local housing provider, I value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents. I address my residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their needs. I am grateful that the council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in October 2017. However, I am concerned that the current proposal you are considering Monday night will have similar consequences as enacting rent control and just cause eviction. If the City Council’s wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or renovations, the ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal. Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass displacements. We recommend the city to work with local housing providers to explore a more balanced and targeted approach. Sincerely, Betty Schink 620 Sand Hill Road Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:JEFFREY RODGERS <jeffreyalanrodgers@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Just cause evictions    Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,     We urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and  mandatory relocation payments for no‐fault evictions.     As local housing providers, we value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing  for Palo Alto residents. We address our residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their  needs.     We are grateful that the council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in  October 2017. However, we are concerned that the current proposal you are considering  Monday night will have similar consequences as enacting rent control and just cause eviction.     If the City Council’s wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or  renovations, the ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal.     Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not  causing mass displacements.     We recommend the city to work with local housing providers to explore a more balanced and  targeted approach.     Sincerely,     Janna & Jeffrey Rodgers  Property owners on University Ave.            Jeffrey A. Rodgers  Executive Managing Director
   CA RE License #00942763          Newmark Cornish & Carey
 2804 Mission College Blvd, Suite 120
 Santa Clara, CA 95054

  D 408.987.4143   F 408.988.6340 
jrodgers@ngkf.com   Profile
     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Anna Sklovsky <asklovsky@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 10:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Reject proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council, I urge you to reject staff’s recommended proposal to enact just cause evictions and mandatory relocation payments for no-fault evictions. As a local housing provider, I value the opportunity to provide safe, stable, and reliable housing for Palo Alto residents. I address my residents’ concerns timely and remain responsive to their needs. I am grateful that the council rejected rent control and just cause eviction at its meeting in October 2017. However, I am concerned that the current proposal you are considering Monday night will have similar consequences as enacting rent control and just cause eviction. If the City Council’s wants to protect residents displaced from large redevelopment or renovations, the ordinances before you do not specifically reach that goal. Please avoid creating legal hurdles or administrative burdens on property owners who are not causing mass displacements. We recommend the city to work with local housing providers to explore a more balanced and targeted approach. Sincerely, Anna Sklovsky     “Welcome those big, sticky, complicated problems. In them are your most powerful opportunities.” Ralph Marston 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jennifer Liu <jenliu_01@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 12:00 AM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Subject:Say NO to Just Cause Eviction and Relocation Assistance! Dear Council member, I'm very shocked to know that Palo Alto is proposing to start Just Cause Eviction (JCE) and force landlords to pay Relocation Assistance for some apartments. I am against any form of Rent Control, including JCE. 1) JCE will make it almost impossible to evict problematic tenants, because it is extremely hard for landlords to prove in court that the tenants had done unlawful things, or had violated the lease. The end result is that bad tenants stay, and good tenants leave, and our neighborhood gets worse. In Bay Area, the cities with long JCE history are the ones with high crime rates: East Palo Alto, Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, etc. 2) JCE is the prelude for Rent Control. The two almost always come together, and is a violation of property rights. Last year, the city council has already rejected Rent Control. We should also reject JCE! 3) JCE and Relocation Assistance is unfair to landlords, and make it hard to do business in Palo Alto. To keep Palo Alto to be a safe and business friendly city, please vote NO to Just Cause Eviction. Thank you, Jennifer Liu, a Palo Alto resident and voter 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Manuel Grech <mandlgrech@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:45 PM To:Council, City Dear council member    We are writing this letter to let you know how we feel about the tenant protection measure being considered for  renters    We are retired and on a fixed income , our monthly social security does not even come close to able us to stay in our  home if it were not for our long term planning and hard work to purchase  our rental property over twenty years ago we  would have to move out.    We understand and empathize with renters in our city but we also feel that having mom and pop landlords pay for rent  and relocation services is not fair and puts undue hardship on people like us who depend on our rental property for a  decent living.    The rental problems are a county and statewide problem that can't be solved by singling out a group of people who did  not create the problem in the first place, if the city wants to help renters by rent control or relocation expenses then it  should be done by a tax on everyone including commercial properties since they are severely under charged because of  prop 13 which allows them to keep the low tax rates even when properties are turned over to new owners.    Please consider the hardship you will cause small rental property owners before you act.    Thank You  Manuel & Leslie Grech  San Mateo Ca,  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Katrina Edwards <katrina@triumphps.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 10:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:VOTE NO Just Cause Eviction & Relocation Payments Please do NOT vote to put these measures in place.  You’re going to hurt a lot of long time residents who are “mom and  pop” landlords by limiting what they can do with THEIR properties.  Just because one large entity might not be playing  fair, doesn’t mean you should punish everyone.  Please vote no.    Talk soon!    Katrina Edwards Triumph Property Services  Cell: 650‐380‐2180  Fax: 650‐813‐9413  BRE 01161252    www.TriumphPS.com     My goal is to help you meet your goals!  Who do you know who needs my help right now?    New office address as of 9/1/2014:  530 Lytton Ave, 2nd Floor  Palo Alto, CA 94301    Reception hours: Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm  Appointments recommended      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  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 11:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Aug 27 Council Meeting re Agenda Item 10 Attachments:ADU Updates Aug 26 2018.docx Please see attached. Agenda Item 10 Regarding Accessory and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU/JADU) August 26, 2018 Dear City Council Members, On behalf of Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN), we write to you to express our support and concerns over the several proposed changes to the ADU Ordinance that was originally passed by Council in 2017. Although we agree that the ADU Ordinance has some merits, we believe there was no need to relax regulations in the original ordinance beyond those required by state mandates. By reaching beyond state mandates, we lose the opportunity to assess how the state mandated ADU process is working for Palo Alto. By exceeding the state mandate, we do not allow ourselves room for course correction in case the city’s ordinance exceeds what is prudent at this time. Why are we concerned? Last year, the public was blindsided when Councilmembers made a motion incorporating multiple concessions and provisions when adopting the ADU ordinance without advance public discussion or notice of these concessions and provisions. This perhaps was an oversight, or it could have been the plan all along to surprise the public with enacting an ADU ordinance that went well beyond the bounds of what had been proposed. The Council should refrain from a similar travesty of the public process this time around. Please do not surprise residents with any last-minute motions relaxing ADU standards even further. We continue to believe that having only 6 feet setbacks along the back and side yard property lines are problematic and should be increased, especially when allowing detached ADUs to have a height of 17 feet. Privacy and shade concerns are an issue when neighbors confront a 17-foot monolith overshadowing their home or garden. We support the proposal to “reduce the height limits for detached ADU’s within identified Eichler tracts”. It makes sense in these special Eichler neighborhoods, that ADU’s should conform to those heights that are similar to those on the same property. To allow ADU heights beyond the main residence would destroy the neighborhood character and damage the sense of openness and privacy enjoyed by residents in these tracts. In fact, this limit should be applied to all detached ADUs. As they can only be one-story, there is no need for them to be 17 feet high. On smaller 5000-6000 square foot lots in particular, this is an intrusive presence when set only 6 feet from a fence, even with daylight plane rules. The 17-foot height also allows for illegal conversion to add loft space. We do support both the staff report and the PTC’s recommendation that “no basements should be allowed in the rear yard setbacks.” Allowing basements in these areas would endanger our future groundwater sources, our precious trees and other important fauna and vegetation that are habitats for local species in our area. We are concerned with effects of construction on trees on adjoining properties and request that protection of neighboring trees be part of the ADU ordinance. We also encourage you to retain the limitation of a maximum of 50% rear yard coverage. Additional impervious cover increases runoff, increases the “heat island” effect, and increases demands on our aging storm drain system. Because the prohibition of expanded curb cuts is ineffective in those neighborhoods with rolled curbs, a prohibition of expansion of parking beyond supporting two vehicles side by side should apply. Furthermore, we encourage you to limit the issuance of Residential Parking Program permits to the number available to the primary residence, to be effective when the RPP software enables that regulation. Sincerely, Becky Sanders Sheri Furman PAN Co-chairs 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Christine Czarnecki <czarnecki@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Making the building of ADUs affordable in Palo Alto To the members of the Palo Alto City Council: In your meeting tonight and in your deliberations to come, please consider a significant reduction in the fees charged by the Palo Alto Planning Department required to build an ADU here. A year ago, I took our house plans to the planning office to discuss the possibility of building an ADU in our existing carport area. Since our house was built in 2001 and its square footage maxed out for the lot, I wanted to make sure this would work and find out the costs. Since we are fully built out, we can only build an ADU of a maximum size of 175 sq. ft., and I am glad of it, but when I got estimates of what the different city fees would be in order to actually build, the total came to nearly $15,000. I find this a staggering amount, but was told that the fees assessed would be just the same as if we were proposing to build a new 6,000 square foot home in Palo Alto. Please consider a drastic cut in these fees. How can a homeowner pay nearly $86 per square foot in city fees for a tiny ADU, before paying an architect for the design and not including one penny of the cost of labor and materials to actually build it? Thank you for your consideration. Christine Czarnecki City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 2:58 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Thursday, August 23, 2018 2:56 PM To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; Eggleston, Brad; Bobel, Phil; Swanson, Andrew; Magliocco, Gina; Wadleigh, James; Rupert, Hillary; Luong, Christine Subject:8/27 Council Agenda Questions for Items 3 & 4 Attachments:Item 3 - Attachment F of CMR 9439.pdf; Item 4 -Screenshot - Initial In-Kind Projections .png Dear Mayor and Council Members:  On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries  made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the August 27, 2018 council meeting agenda.  Item 3: Approval of Airport Contracts & Budget Amendments – CM Tanaka   Item 4: Approve 3 Vendor Contracts for Mobility on Demand FTA Grant – CM Tanaka   Item 3: Approval of Airport Contracts & Budget Amendments – CM Tanaka  Q. 1.   Where will the minor expansion of facilities be? Is there a map of where the  work will be done and where the expansion will happen? Are there any other  animals besides owls that could be impacted? A. 1.   The apron reconstruction project is a multi‐phased project. The minor  expansion occurred in Phase I which was completed Summer 2018 (CMR 8127). All  phases of the apron reconstruction work are represented in Attachment F of CMR  9439 (attached to email), however, to answer the specific question, the  attachment shows a hash‐marked area for the minor expansion.  A habitat  assessment was conducted as well as pre‐construction surveys and no special  status species were observed in the area of the minor expansion. Q. 2.   Why can’t the airport fund start to repay the general fund in FY2018? How  long will it take for the airport fund to fully repay the general fund? A. 2.   As part of the FY 2019 Adopted Budget, Council approved deferring the  payment of the general fund loan in order to fund the 10% match requirement to  be eligible to receive FAA grant funds to pay for 90% of Phase II of the Apron  Reconstruction project. This multi‐phase project was recognized as an important  safety‐related maintenance and modernization project which meets FAA design  standards that corrects deficiencies and increases overall airport safety (CMR  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 2:58 PM 2 8127). Council also approved funding to complete an Airport Business Plan as part  of the FY 2019 Adopted Budget, and a contract award for this Plan is scheduled for  later this Fall. The goal of this plan, in conjunction with a detailed facilities  assessment study, will be to evaluate existing facility repairs and safety needs;  establish business guidelines and strategies to allow the Airport to become a self‐ sustaining enterprise fund; and inform future operations and investments,  including but not limited to repayment of the outstanding General Fund loan.  Once the Airport Business Plan is complete, staff will be able to inform Council on  the timeline for full repayment of the loan.     Q. 3.   Has DeSilva Gates Construction LP done any work for the City of Palo Alto in  the past? If not, has the city obtained any testimonials of their work? A. 3.   DeSilva Gates Construction was awarded and recently completed the  construction contract for Phase I of the apron reconstruction project (See CMR  8127).    Q. 4.   What are the contingencies to get the FAA grant to pay for 90% of the total  project? Currently, it seems as if the FAA grant is paying about 40% of the project.  Why doesn’t the grant cover a higher percentage? A. 4.   Work must meet FAA Airport Improvement Program eligibility  requirements.  All work within Phase II of the apron reconstruction project, except  Alternates 9 & 10, meet funding eligibility requirements and are eligible for 90%  reimbursement. With the exception of Alternates 9 & 10 totaling $595,183  ($536,080 funded by the Wastewater Treatment Fund Capital Improvement  Program and $59,103 funded by Airport Enterprise Fund), Phase II with 15%  contingency is $14,216,415. $13,621,232 is eligible for 90% reimbursement or a  total of $12,259,109.   Item 4: Approve 3 Vendor Contracts for Mobility on Demand FTA Grant – CM Tanaka      Q. 1.   How is the feebate going to work? A. 1.   Feebate is a two‐sided concept, where there is a fee and a rebate.  A  “feebate” system will simultaneously assess fees for Single Occupancy Vehicle  (SOV) use (assigning a “fair value”) and redirect the income received to fund  incentives for use of alternative transportation modes, creating a self‐sustaining  commute program.  While the feebate might be desirable for other pilot programs  it may not be the best strategy for the City of Palo Alto pilot.  Alternatively, the  City of Palo Alto is exploring a “cashout” program where an incentive is paid to  employees participating in the pilot who are non‐SOV.  There are different forms  of incentives; most commonly taxable cash and/or tax‐free transit passes. The  “fee” part is the innovative mechanism used to generate income to sustain the  cash out. While a pure cashout program would not address the “fee” part, it is  highly likely that a cashout program would generate measurable reductions in car  use by participating employees. Q. 2.   Where is the $271,250 taken from? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 2:58 PM 3 A. 2.   The $271,250 is the overall “in‐kind” match the project is required to meet  per the Federal Guidelines.  Each project vendor will contribute toward the 20%  match and this requirement is built into the vendor contracts.  The participating  pilots will also contribute in‐kind and this will be built into the Memorandum of  Understanding (MOUs) as they are developed.  The City of Palo Alto received the  award and is running the project, as such, it will carry a higher proportion of the  match.  In alignment with its cooperative agreement with the Federal Transit  Administration (FTA), the City will request monthly in‐kind statements from the  pilot partners and/or the City will request monthly in‐kind information from the  vendors when invoices are submitted for payment.  The City will report this to the  FTA on a monthly basis and the project manager will track this to ensure the  match is being met.  The initial in‐kind projections are attached as a screenshot. Q. 3.   How much discretion will the city have compared to the FTA since they stated  in the grant that they will be hands on in the project and could change the direction  if they wanted to? A. 3.   This is a research and innovation project for the FTA’s Office of Research,  Demonstration and Innovation (TRI).  This project is one of 11 selected grantees  and projects in a Sandbox Mobility grant program that received a total of $8  million to use innovative public‐private partnerships to deploy, demonstrate, and  evaluate on‐demand concepts in transit.  This is also a co‐operative agreement  and because of the nature of this project, the City of Palo Alto has a fair amount of  discretion over the project.   For example, last Fall, the City’s project manager worked closely with the FTA’s  Sandbox Project Manager and the FTA’s Director of Mobility Innovation to re‐ scope the project.  It was a collaborative effort that resulted in several changes to  the Statement of Work (which did not significantly change the project or scope) to  more effectively structure the pilot demonstrations and provide more meaningful  analysis. The proposed changes to the Statement of Work included restructuring the  number of participating locations in order to make the project more meaningful  and demonstration attainable.  The City first sought to restructure the number of  pilot projects from exactly 11 to a range of 4 to 11.  This is significant because it  gave the City the ability to work more closely with each pilot site and ensure the  project is manageable.  The City also believed a restructure in pilots was a better  approach to capture more useful data and provide a more meaningful  analysis.  The City also sought to restructure the gap analysis locations from 8 to a  range of 1 to 3. These adjustments will enable the City to develop a deeper  understanding of the gaps and potential solutions for first mile/last mile  challenges; this in turn will enable the City to propose relevant solutions and  strategies, based upon an in‐depth analysis of current challenges. The overall  project remained the same (including the equity and policy elements, which  remain intact); the project was simply scaled to ensure it will be able to proceed  to the demonstration phase of the program.  The City recommended this streamlined approach to the FTA in order to ensure a  more successful project with more meaningful results, and to enable the City to  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 2:58 PM 4 produce a better case study for other regions to utilize to adapt and scale these  initiatives in their unique circumstances.  Throughout this process, the FTA remained engaged, supportive and flexible.  At  this point there is no reason to assume this relationship would be different in the  future or that the FTA would change the project’s direction. Q. 4.   What is the plan if the three companies cannot deliver on time? A. 4.   San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (Spur) is a  leading and well‐respected non‐profit that works to address some of the toughest  challenges in our urban areas around mobility, sustainability & resilience, housing,  economic development and other regional planning issues.  They have remained  engaged and supportive for the past 20 months as the City worked on putting the  pieces in place for this project.  There is no reason to believe they will not deliver  on their contract. RideAmigos is a leading cloud‐based commuter management platform located in  Los Angeles.  They are currently licensed through Commute.org in San Mateo  County and are the leading commuter management platform in San Mateo  County.  RideAmigos will develop software feature set enhancements to their  existing platform and will roll out these updates throughout the duration of the  grant.  RideAmigos will also support the pilot projects for San Mateo  County.  RideAmigos has remained engaged and supportive for the past 20  months as the City worked on putting the pieces in place for this project.  There is  no reason to believe they will not deliver on their contract. Luum is a cloud‐based commuter management platform located in Seattle,  WA.  Luum will be the platform used for the pilots in Santa Clara County. Under  the contract, Luum will develop the commute hubs and issue licenses for the pilot  demonstrations in Santa Clara County.  While Luum has been engaged on the  project, the company is challenging to work with and has little experience working  with the public sector.  The company is also used to working with pro‐transit  communities and organizations.  Luum has had very good success in Washington  State but the City has not been able to come to contracting terms with this  organization.  If necessary the City will pursue a contingency plan, such as  contracting with RideAmigos for the Santa Clara County pilots. Q. 5.   Where are attachments C, D, E which is supposed to describe in detail what  the three vendors are going to do? A. 5.   The contracts are still being negotiated. 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  6 4 2 8 10 12 14 16 18 5 3 1 6 4 2 11 9 7 13 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 5 3 1 11 9 7 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 F K L M J H N P Q R S T U U Y Y Y Y K Y Y 4 6 8 7 9 13 2 1 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 3 5 11 15 17 19 21 2 4 1 3 6 5 8 7 10 9 12 11 14 13 15 G H J K 23 24 Y3 Y2 Y1 V W YYY Y Y X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TERMINAL BUILDING CIVIL AIR PATROL BUILDING PROPOSED RUN-UP AREA FBO HAN G A R HAN G A R H A N G A R HAN G A R HAN G A R HAN G A R HAN G A R FBO HAN G A R FBO HAN G A R RUNWAY 13-31 TAXIWAY Z TW B TW A EMB A R C A D E R O R O A D FBO FBO HAN G A R PHASE I & III BASE BID BASE BID/ ALT 3 ALT 1/4 ALT 1 ALT 2/5 ALT 2/5 ALT 1/4 PHASE II PHASE I PHASE III BASE BID/ ALT 3 33190 SY 21410 SY 32307 SY 24065 SY 22315 SY 34895 SY 29150 SY 14730 SY FULL PAVEMENT SECTION CONSTRUCTED IN PHASE I. TIE DOWNS, STRIPING AND LIGHTING TO BE INSTALLED WITH PHASE III MINOR EXPANSION AREA The preparation of this document may have been supported, in part, through the Airport Improvement Program financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (Project Number Unassigned) as provided under Title 49 U.S.C., Section 47104. The contents do not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable or would have justification in accordance with appropriate public laws. PALO ALTO AIRPORT PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 112 Sacramento, CA 95826 Phone: 916-364-1470 www.cscos.com C&S Engineers, Inc. 4321 C B A 4321 A B C NO.REVISION SPONSOR DATE APRON RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT OF DATE: SHEETDESIGN:DRAWN: CHECK: 1 AUGUST 2017 200FT.1000100 100'#5%#.'ž 18'4#..2*#5+0)2.#0 2*#5'+Ä%105647%6'&+0 2*#5'++Ä17661$+& #06+%+2#6'&(;(70&+0) 2*#5'+++Ä%744'06.;241)4#//'&(14(;(70&+0) .')'0& OVERALL PHASING PLAN PH-1 5; 5; 5; 4GHGTUVQ(GFGTCN(WPFKPI;GCTU In Kind Contribution Amount Needed to Meet FTA Requirements (20o/o of $1,356,250) $ 271,250 Contributing Partner Program Professional Hours: Estimates: Pilot 1: City of Palo Alto (50h/mo @$125/h) $ 73,645 Pilot 2: City of Mt. View (10h/mo @$100/h) $ 12,000 Pilot 3: City TBD (10h/mo @$100/h) $ 12,000 Pilot 4: City of Menlo Park (10h/mo @100/h) $ 12,000 Pilot 5: Google (TBD) - Pilot 6: TBD - Luum (20% of cotract value) $ 20,200 Ride Amigos (20% of contract value) $ 20,800 SPUR (20% of contract value) $ 20,000 Prospect SV (20% of contract value) $ 40,000 Downtown Palo Alto Transit Management Association (10h/mo@$175/h) $ 31,500 Commute.org (10h/m@$100/h) + quarterly fee for county-wide license (TBD) $ 18,000 VTA (10h/mo@$100/h) $ 18,000 Sub Total $ 278, 145 1 Carnahan, David From:Roy, Alyssa <ARoy@rutan.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 4:50 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Lanferman, David; Tim Franzen; Alex Stanford; Stump, Molly; Keene, James; 'Andrew Zacks' Subject:8/27/18 City Council Meeting Agenda Item # 8 Attachments:20180827164450325.pdf Please see attached correspondence from David Lanferman regarding tonight’s Agenda Item # 8.     Thank you.     Alyssa Roy Rutan & Tucker, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Ste. 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 ARoy@rutan.com www.rutan.com RUTAN _____________________________________________________  Privileged And Confidential Communication.  This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act  (18 USC §§ 2510‐2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the  intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the  electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly  prohibited.  RUTAN ---·--- RUTAN & T UCKER, LLP August 27, 2018 VIA E-MAIL and HAND DELIVERY Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss and Members of the City Council of Palo Alto CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: CITY COUNCIL MEETING -August 27, 2018 Agenda Item# 8: David P. Lanfennan Direct Dial: (650) 320-1507 E-mail: dlanferman@rutan.com Consideration of an "Emergency Ordinance" and a non-emergency Ordinance to Amend P AMC Chapter 9.68 to Require-for Multifamily Housing Developments of 50 Units or More-Relocation Assistance and Other Restrictions (Cause for Eviction) on Termination of Tenancies and Evictions. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ACTIONS Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council: On behalf of our client, AJ Capital Management LLC ("AJ Capital"), we respectfully object to the proposed actions and request these matters be rejected.1 The staff report confirms that these new ordinances are being rushed for adoption, at least in part, in reaction to objections from some of the tenants being required to vacate the President Hotel building at 488 University A venue, which AJ Capital is now planning to aesthetically restore and return to its historic and intended use as a hotel. Since the tenants of the President Hotel have previously been served with notices requiring that they vacate the premises by mid-November, none of the proposed new ordinances could be lawfully applied-retroactively-to impair the existing leases or notices of non-renewal-even if adopted by Council this evening. This agenda item unquestionably involves very imp01iant housing issues that deserve appropriate and thoughtful consideration by the City Council and the entire Palo Alto community. Unfortunately, however, this item is being unnecessarily rushed to the Council without adequate We refer collectively to both the proposed "Emergency Ordinance" and the substantively identical non-emergency "Ordinance" to require relocation assistance payments, as well as the alternative variant of the proposed emergency and non-emergency ordinances to require "just cause" for evictions as the "Action," unless otherwise stated. Rutan & Tucker, LLP I Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306-9814 I 650-320-1500 I Fax 650-320-9905 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 27861034460-0001 12775153.1 a08f27fl8 RUTAN RUTAN 4 lUCKCR LLP Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss City Clerk Page 2 public notice, without critical analysis or evidence, and without providing sufficient time for members of the Council-or members of the public-to consider or respond to the very significant issues raised by this proposed legislation. The significant issues, and potential long-term impacts, raised by the proposed new ordinances will not lawfully apply to AJ Capital. While it may understandably be tempting for the City to consider some new form of governmental intervention in the private rental marketplace, it is very questionable whether the proposed ordinances would effectively, or lawfully, promote the City's stated housing goals. At the same time, they would create new burdens that are likely to further drive up rents and discourage the creation of more rental housing and dis-incentivize the improvement and maintenance of the existing housing supply. There are many procedural and substantive legal grounds for objection to the proposed actions, including (without limitation) those summarized below. Since the Staff Report was not provided until late Thursday August 23, 2018, there has only been limited time to review, analyze, and respond to these proposals, and the points swnmarized below are consequently ab breviated. (1) The ordinances would violate constitutional rights to due process of law, especially if applied retroactively to the existing tenancies or to previously-served notices of non-renewal: It is fundamental that newly-adopted legislation operates prospectively, and that constitutional principles of Due Process would preclude the retroactive application of the new ordinances (even if adopted) to impair existing rights or contractual relationships, or previously- commenced proceedings for reclaiming possession of rental properties. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10; Cal. Const., art. I,§ 9; De Anza v. Palm Springs Rent Review Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 116 [court of appeal held that local rent adjustment guidelines could not be retroactively effective to bar a property owner from relying on the law as it had existed at the time of his previous application of a rent increase].) (2) The proposed new ordinances would violate and be preempted by State law governing residential tenancies and notices of non-renewal: State law governs, and preempts the relevant subject matter including termination of residential tenancies, notices, and evictions. (E.g., Birkenfeldv. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129 [Supreme Court struck down that portion of a local ordinance that imposed additional procedural requirements on landlords attempting eviction] and TriCounty Apartment Assn. v. City of Mountain View (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1283 [state laws govern many aspects of the landlord/tenant relationship; a local ordinance purporting to require a longer period of notification to tenant of increasing rent than required by state law was preempted and declared invalid].) (3) The proposed new ordinances would violate the Ellis Act: Similarly, State law-i.e., the Ellis Act (Gov. Code, §7060 et seq.)-limits the terms and conditions that municipalities may impose on property owners seeking to cease residential rental operations at their properties. "A public entity may not impose an inevitable and undue burden ... on a 2 786/034460-000 I 12775153.1 a08/27/18 RUTAN RUlAU 6-TUCKCR, llP Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss City Clerk Page 3 landlord's exercise of its right under the Ellis Act to exit the residential rental business." (San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 479, 482 [an ordinance is preempted and void if it amounts to a substantive limit on a landlord's right to exit the rental market].) If applied to those owners seeking to exit the residential rental market, the proposed ordinances and new requirements for relocation assistance payments are invalid under the Ellis Act. (Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal. App.5th 1215; Channing Properties v. City of Berkeley (1992) 11Cal.App.4th88, 96-100.) ( 4) The proposed ordinances would not be limited to "affordable" or rent- controlled housing units: While the Ellis Act may allow a city to impose reasonable measures to protect tenants of units withdrawn from rent under certain circumstances, it also provides that those measures only apply ifthe agency "has in effect any control or system of control on the price at which accommodations may be offered for rent or lease .... " (Gov. Code,§§ 7060.2, 7060.4.) In the absence of an adopted rent control program, the City cannot lawfully approve the Action. In the "Survey of California Cities that Require Relocation Assistance Payments" included in the Staff Report, twelve of the thirteen cities cited have some form of rent control, and every jurisdiction that bases the amount of the relocation assistance payment on the size of the unit has rent control in place. The proposal to require payment of a relocation subsidy to tenants moving out of market rate housing would be inconsistent with the policies behind state and local law aimed at assisting residents of "affordable housing." (5) The ordinances would violate constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws, by arbitrarily discriminating against certain property owners, and irrationally subjecting only buildings with 50 or more units to burdens differing from those imposed on similarly situated property owners: There is no evidence, substantial or otherwise, to justify the proposed arbitrary application of the new ordinances only to properties with 50 or more units, nor any evidence or rational basis for the discriminatory structure of the proposed ordinances. (See, e.g., Walgreen Co. v. City & County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 424, 434 [invalidating ordinance discriminating arbitrarily between pharmacies and general grocery stores]; and Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 451 [invalidating ordinance arbitrarily limiting eligible occupants of residential second units].) The City must provide a rational basis, supported by substantial evidence, to try to justify the discriminatory application of the ordinances. (Fry v. City of Hayward (N.D. Cal. 1988) 701 F.Supp. 179 [invalidating initiative ordinance on equal protection grounds].) (6) Failure to provide factual or legal justification for "emergency" legislation: The Council may not lawfully adopt the proposed Emergency Ordinance because it does not contain the mandatory findings required by Government Code section 65858, or Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") section 2.04.270(d). Even if it had made the requisite findings, the City Council's action would still fail as there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the necessary declaration of an "emergency." To the contrary, the record acknowledges that the sho1iage of rental housing in Palo Alto has been a "prolonged" condition, i.e., not a sudden event 2786/034460-000 I 12775153.1 a08/27/18 RUTAN RUlMf &. TUCtot[R, LLP Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss City Clerk Page 4 and not an "emergency."2 Similarly, Government Code section 65858 does not provide any basis for "emergency" action as proposed. There is no evidence in the record showing that there is any study underway regarding changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan, specific plan(s), or zoning code that might warrant an "emergency" interim ordinance under section 65858 or otherwise. (7) An "emergency ordinance" may not lawfully be used to stifle or burden a specific development proposal: A city ordinance cannot be enacted for the purpose of frustrating a developer's plans. (Sunset View Cemetery Association v. Kraintz (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 115, 123-24. Here, as in that case, the staffrep01i acknowledges (pp. 1, 3) that the proposed ordinances are in direct response to AJ Capital's proposal to restore the President Hotel to hotel use. To the extent that the proposed ordinances may be intended to frustrate a paiiicular development proposal, they would be discriminatory, unlawful, and inapplicable to the targeted development. (Stewart Enterprises v. City of Oakland (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 41 O; Arne! Dev. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330; and Kieffer v. Spence (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 954.) (8) The City must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act before taking any action on the proposed ordinances: The proposed actions would clearly require compliance with the California Environn1ental Quality Act ("CEQA") before the City could lawfully adopt either ordinance. (Public Resources Code, §§ 21080, 21000, 21065.) There is no evidentiary basis for the proposed finding that "it can be seen with certainty" that the proposed actions "have no potential" for direct or indirect environmental consequences. (See, e.g., Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City & County of San Francisco (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 892, 904-907 [City's failure to comply with CEQA before adopting hotel conversion ordinance was "illegal."].) To the contrary, it can be seen with near certainty that the proposed actions would have significant potential direct or indirect environmental consequences. (9) There is no legal or factual justification for the City to try to declare the proposed actions "categorically exempt" from CEQA review, and the City erroneously fails to consider the exceptions to any relevant categorical exemption: There is no substantial evidentiai·y or legal support for the City to try to "exempt" these actions from any CEQA review, and such a claim of categorical exemption would plainly be unlawful. (See, e.g., Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 705 [rejecting City's unsupported claim of categorical exemption from CEQA].) The City has the burden "to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the (proposed action satisfies the criteria of the claimed exemption]." (Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386.) A petitioner bears no 2 The Palo Alto "housing shortage" is not a new phenomenon, and is often attributed to the City's own policies. According to the City's own Comprehensive Plan (Table 5-1) the City only produced 1,063 total housing units between 2007-2014, which was only 37 percent of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Of those, only 290 units-or 16 percent of the regional goal-were deemed "affordable." 2786/034460-000 I 12775153.1 a08/27/18 RUTAN . fll.JTAU £ T\JCKCR, LLP Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss City Clerk Page 5 burden to show a project will degrade the environment. (Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 705.) In addition, the court of appeal has emphasized that a categorical "exemption can be relied on only if a factual evaluation of the agency's proposed activity reveals that it applies." (Id.) And the staff rep01t fails to consider whether any "exceptions" to a categorical exemption might require CEQA compliance. An agency may not invoke a categorical exemption from CEQA without considering whether it is foreclosed by an exception. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1103.) The City cannot ignore the substantial probability of environmental consequences of this action, and the relevance of the "unusual circumstances" exception to any categorical exemption from CEQA (see below). (10) It is reasonably foreseeable that adoption of the proposed ordinances will result in direct and indirect environmental consequences and well as adverse impacts on rents and housing supply: The City cannot lawfully disregard the many possible environmental impacts, direct or indirect, of the ordinances. For example, if landlords are to be required to pay relocation assistance to outgoing tenants, they are likely to offset those new costs by increasing the rents charged to incoming tenants, or by reducing the amounts available for maintenance or improvements. By providing some displaced tenants with the windfall of "tenant relocation" assistance, the ordinances will inject new money into the market-rate rental market, thus inducing other landlords to demand higher rents. By making it more difficult and costly to remove tenants, the ordinances reduce the incentives to build or upgrade rental housing in Palo Alto, reducing both the supply and quality of rental housing, and creating an impediment to safety upgrades such as environmental remediation, seismic upgrades, and fire and life safety systems. This may result in significant urban decay impacts. See, e.g., California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 188 ["When there is evidence ... that economic and social effects caused by a project ... could result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact, such as urban decay or deterioration, then the CEQA lead agency is obligated to assess this indirect environmental impact."].) In Terminal Plaza Corp., supra, l 77 Cal.App.3d at 904- 907, the cowt of appeal rejected a city's argument that its enactment of a hotel conversion ordinance imposing new burdens on owners of residential hotels was exempt from CEQA. The reasonably foreseeable indirect and negative environmental impacts of the ordinances must be analyzed before the Council acts on them. (11) Failure to refer the proposed new ordinances for study by the Planning & Transportation Commission: The proposed actions should be referred to the Planning and Transpo1tation Commission for review before any Council action, as required by Government Code section 65864, since the ordinances would, in effect, operate like new zoning ordinances applicable to certain properties. 2786/034460-000 l 12775153.1 a08/27/l8 RUTAN RUT AH&> TUCl'l.CR LLi- Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss City Clerk Page 6 (12) The Action is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan: There is nothing in the record to indicate, much less demonstrate, how the proposed ordinances would be consistent with any aspect of the City's Comprehensive Plan or would promote any of the City's established housing goals and policies. As explained above, there is no articulated public policy reason cited in the record justifying the proposed new mandated subsidies targeted to benefit a select group of tenants residing in market-rate rental units. ******************** In light of the serious questions, unstudied issues, and patent legal deficiencies inherent in the proposed actions, we respectfully urge the City Council to reject the proposed new ordinances. Adoption of the proposed Emergency Ordinances or Ordinances in the present form would lead to many adverse consequences and may needlessly expose the City to the risk of costly legal proceedings by many affected paii ies. Thank you for yom consideration. DPL:mtr cc: Tim Franzen, AJ Capital Alex Stanford, AJ Capital Molly Stump, City Attorney James Keene, City Manager Very truly yours, Andrew Zacks, Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC 2786/034460-000 I 12775153.1 a08/27/18 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 5:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:ADUs To the P. A. City Council, Please dial back to the State Requirements, or to the original staff suggestions. In the current proposal there is no tree protection for adjacent lots. No basements for ADUs, also hurts trees, roots from the next residence. There needs to be a 20ft. rear yard setback not 6, That will create tunnels of 12 feet between , and create 17 foot height tunnels at the property line. Will ruin our back yard natural habitat. Please , do not ruin our R1 neighborhoods. And please no parking in the front, with out real designated spaces. Covering everything with cement, smothers our earth. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 1 Carnahan, David From:Christine Czarnecki <czarnecki@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Choices for Rail and Road intersections in Palo Alto To the Palo Alto City Council members; I would like to see scale drawings of what the different proposals will look like, looking east and looking west from the intersections and from Alma. It is my opinion that the cross sections shown are insufficient to understand the visual and sound impacts of the alternatives, especially the so-called hybrid option, where the train will be elevated about the street level. If these drawings have not been commissioned, please do so and, once received, release them for public scrutiny and comment. It it my strong preference to go with either the tunnel for the train, or the reverse hybrid option, where the train in lowered into a trench below grade. We need to think of what will be the best choice for Palo Alto going into the future, not solely what will be the cheapest and most expedient solution for now. Thank you. 1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 1:30 PM To:Stump, Molly Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James; Minor, Beth; Lunt, Kimberly; Brettle, Jessica; Carnahan, David; Kleinberg, Judy; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; 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; 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:CPRA Request | LG obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Zones       Molly Suzanne Stump, JD  City Attorney at City of Palo Alto    CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST (made this 25th day of August, 2018)    Dear Madame:    Pursuant to California Public Records Act Request (CPRA) (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.), re the recent destruction of FIVE downtown Handicap Zones by Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (LG) on Lytton Street, I request the release of copies of the following documents:    1. All emails and communications that Transportation Division Official Joshuah Mello received on the topic.    2. All city communications with LG on the issue.    3. All City-LG issues going back 36 months.    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 very much.   I appreciate your time and help.    Respectfully,  -Danielle Martell  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com              1 Carnahan, David From:marilynn holland <marilynn.holland@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:47 AM To:Council, City Cc:Bobby Holland Subject:El Camino parked vehicles City Council,  This is my first letter to the City Council of Palo Alto.  It is quite distressing to see pretty beat up looking Mobile homes, not just parked, but jacked up for permanent stays.   They line the street in front of our beautiful Stanford playing fields, and proceed for a mile down past Page Mill Road.  They have been parked that way for over a year.    While I sympathize with whatever their circumstances may be, we all pay high taxes to live in our beautiful city of Palo  Alto. These vehicles are an eyesore and not fair to other mobile home owners that pay to use facilities at a mobile home  park.    Where will this end? Will our main streets become full of raggedy sleeping compartments that we look at everyday on  our way to work or play?    Can there not be some limit to the time a vehicle can be parked on public streets?  Surely this is a problem that can effectively be solved.    Thank you for your service and consideration of this issue.    Marilynn Holland  30 year resident   1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 1:19 AM To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); Jonsen, Robert; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; ibain@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; myraw@smcba.org; HRC; Constantino, Mary; Council, City; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; apardini@cityofepa.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Binder, Andrew; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; stephanie@dslextreme.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; Kilpatrick, Brad; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; scharpentier@cityofepa.org; mbuell@cityofepa.org Subject:Ex-Texas police officer found guilty of murder in fatal shooting of black teenager Ex‐Texas police officer found guilty of murder in fatal shooting of black teenager https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roy‐ oliver‐former‐texas‐police‐officer‐guilty‐of‐murder‐in‐fatal‐shooting‐of‐black‐teen‐jordan‐edwards/      Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2018 11:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 11:08 AM To:Cindy Chavez; Councilmember Don Rocha Subject:Facebook Fake News--Coconut oil good/bad? There is a big ruckus on Facebook about coconut oil. Harvard prof Dr Karin Michels is reported by the media to have claimed it is a 'poison' in a talk in German to Germans. She forgot to mention that coconut oil raises good cholesterol HDL more than bad cholesterol LDL in coconut oil. Perhaps that was lost in the translation by US social media. Below is one reputable response. from Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com Many families with advanced cases of Alzheimer's praise organic coconut oil for improvement in their patients as does Dr Mary Newport, MD for her young husband. Is coconut oil bad for your cholesterol?? Main points: * . . . coconut oil’s overall effect raises good HDL while lowering triglycerides and small bad LDL cholesterol particles-- definitely a good thing. * Carbs worsen blood levels of the even-chained saturated fats, which cause heart disease. *Recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines finally stopped recommending lowering cholesterol and dietary fat. * Studies show saturated fat raises LDL but it improves the quality of the LDL and increases its size making it less likely to promote heart disease. * It also raises HDL. On the other hand, sugar lowers HDL. by Dr Mark Hyman, UltraWellness Center, Lenox, MA Ever since I started using coconut oil, my cholesterol has spiked,” writes this week’s house call. “I’m afraid coconut oil with all that saturated fat is creating more harm than good. Should I continue to use it?” Since I expressed my love for medium-chain triglyceride oil or MCT oil, I’ve received this question several times. I call MCTs (found in coconut oil) a super fuel for your cells because your body uses this kind of fat very efficiently. Your cells burn MCTs for energy while storing very little as fat, boosting your metabolism and supporting your immune system. MCTs also help balance many hormones, including the ones that control your appetite. They keep you feeling full and satisfied. They actually improve your cholesterol profile. They also help your body burn fat. One study found that consuming MCT oils helped reduce body fat and triglycerides more than omega 6 vegetable oils. After eight weeks, the experiment showed the MCT oil group lost more weight, body fat and subcutaneous fat, all while experiencing a 15 percent drop in triglycerides and LDL. At the same time, as MCT-rich coconut oil becomes more popular, it also becomes a concern among some folks because of its high amounts of saturated fat and potential for raising cholesterol. The reality is, cholesterol is not black and white. Classifying it as “good” or “bad” vastly oversimplifies this molecule, which among its duties helps synthesize vitamin D and hormones while maintaining cell structure. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2018 11:24 AM 2 Some fats do raise cholesterol, whereas others lower cholesterol. Even when saturated fat does raise your cholesterol, the type of cholesterol becomes more important than cholesterol itself. As a doctor, I tell patients that abnormal cholesterol can become a problem when it is the small dense LDL particles, accompanied by high triglycerides. In fact small LDL particles actually triple your risk of heart disease. This is caused by high-carb, low-fat diets and is improved when you add fat back to the diet, including saturated fat. Studies show saturated fat raises LDL (your so-called “bad” cholesterol) but it improves the quality of the LDL and increases its size making it less likely to promote heart disease. It also raises HDL (“good” cholesterol). On the other hand, sugar lowers HDL. Ultimately, the ratio of total to LDL cholesterol and particle number and size are a far bigger predictor of heart attacks than LDL itself. That brings us back to coconut oil, which can contain up to 90 percent saturated fat. Interestingly, countries with the highest intakes of coconut oil have the lowest rates of heart disease. While research shows coconut oil contains higher amounts of saturated fat and does increase total cholesterol, those amounts do not increase your heart attack or stroke risk. In fact, one study among lean, heart disease- and stroke-free Pacific Islanders who consumed up to 63 percent of their calories from coconut fat found total cholesterol rose but so did their “good” HDL. Other studies found lipid profiles improve on high-fat diets containing coconut oil. Researchers concluded it wasn’t saturated fat from coconuts that negatively impacted cholesterol profile. Instead, the coconut oil’s overall effect raised HDL while lowering triglycerides and small LDL cholesterol particles, which is definitely a good thing. Coconut oil provides other benefits such as lowering insulin levels, protecting against heart disease. The predominant fatty acid in coconut oil is lauric acid, which provides antimicrobial, antibacterial and antiviral benefits. There is a huge difference between quality saturated fat in coconut oil or MCT oils, as compared with what you get in a fast food cheeseburger. Lumping them all together becomes like putting cauliflower and a cupcake under the carbohydrate category. Don’t be afraid of saturated fat, but get it from healthy sources like coconuts and grass-fed beef, which automatically edges out unhealthy sources. And total cholesterol is not an accurate predictor of heart disease or stroke. Inflammation is the culprit for most diseases, and coconut oil is highly anti- inflammatory. To answer your question…if your doctor finds you have high cholesterol, ask him or her to dig deeper to see what’s really going on. Ask the right questions and most importantly, get the right tests! You should request a particle size test to check for cholesterol particle size and number. Other cholesterol tests are simply outdated. A routine, regular cholesterol test won’t reveal particle size. The tests you’ll want to ask for are either an NMR Lipid Panel from LabCorp or the Cardio IQ Test from Quest Diagnostics. Those are the only tests to really know what’s going on with your cholesterol. Optimal results will show plenty of safe, light, fluffy, big particles with minimal small, dense, artery-damaging particles. Combine healthy fats with a no-added-sugar diet and you have an effective strategy to normalize cholesterol while reducing your risk for heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/24/2018 11:24 AM 3 and numerous other chronic conditions. Eliminating refined carbs and sugar and adding adequate omega 3 fats means saturated fat should not be a problem. In one interventional trial, researchers showed even on a low-carb diet that was higher in saturated fats, blood levels of saturated fat were lower. That’s because dietary saturated fats do not raise dangerous blood saturated fats – sugar and refined carbs do! They also found people on a higher saturated-fat diet had lower levels of inflammation and oxidative stress, as well as a better cholesterol profile. Other studies confirm carbs worsen blood levels of the even chained saturated-fats, which cause heart disease. These carbs drive your liver to create more fat in your blood, a process called lipogenesis triggered by alcohol, soda, sugar-sweetened drinks, starches and sugars. Whole, healthy-fat foods like butter, meat or cheese do not increase this process. Note, too, that recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines finally stopped recommending lowering cholesterol and dietary fat. In fact, the new guidelines don’t emphasize any limit on total dietary fat or cholesterol, which is a complete reversal on governmental advice from 35 years ago. Better late than never! If you’re curious to learn more, I dive deep into the benefits of coconut oil and saturated fat while busting cholesterol and other myths in my new book, Eat Fat, Get Thin. Simply put, the real villain that robs our health and increases our waistlines is sugar and anything that breaks down to sugar like refined carbohydrates. Quality fats like coconut oil and more anti-inflammatory omega 3 fats help edge out those sugars and inflammatory refined omega 6 fat vegetable oils. Wishing you health & happiness, Mark Hyman, MD Mark Hyman MD is the Director of Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Functional Medicine, the Founder of The UltraWellness Center, and a ten-time #1 New York Times Bestselling author. If you are looking for personalized medical support, we highly recommend contacting Dr. Hyman’s UltraWellness Center in Lenox, Massachusetts today. 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:27 AM 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: Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM  Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Monday, Aug. 27, 2018                   To all‐  I have received my home owner's insurance policy for the year starting Oct. 5, 2018. The premium is  5.1% higher than it was for the year beginning Oct. 5, 2017. I do not think that I live in a fire‐prone area in NW Fresno,  but see the discussion in the attached about that. If you live in California you are subject to wildfires, Cal‐Fire is saying.                   Prop. 103, passed in 1988, is saving us from the insurance Cos. recovering, in one year, the billions of dollars the  2017 wildfires in California are costing them. The wine country fire alone is costing them $12 billion. I remember well  when 103 was passed, and it barely passed. The insurance industry spent big money fighting it and really hates it. Info.  re Prop. 103:                    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/californias‐big‐fire‐losses‐in‐2017‐wont‐mean‐huge‐insurance‐hikes‐in‐ 2018.html                  So if you do not live in a fire prone area, brace for maybe a 5% hike in your next home insurance premium. I hate  to think what owners in fire prone areas will now pay, but I did not buy a home in the woods. To some tiny extent,  wildfires are foreseeable and have been burning thousands of homes to the ground for many years now in  California.  Unless government officials take steps, they will continue. See the attached for some ideas I suggest. I do not  understand why I have to make these suggestions. Where is government here? Do you see speeches in Congress by  Senator Diane Feinstein, our other U.S. Senator, Kamala Harris, and by members of the House from California re the  wildfires we are having and offering ideas to limit the damage?  I do not.                  Jerry Brown is a smart guy. Why can't he develop ideas to limit the wildfire damage? He can call on every  employee of the State of California for ideas and on every expert outside of government. He stood at a news conference  recently regarding the fires and said that we have to change where we build homes and how we build them. We need  more ideas than that, and I offer some good ones in the attached.  Implementing those and others will take money, but  we just passed a DOD budget of $716 billion for the next year, and Trump crowed that it is the largest ever. It will enable  2 the people of Europe, Japan, Korea to live the good life and let young Americans to fight their wars for them, but we  desperately need that money for things here at home. The American suckers are gouged to pay 70% of the cost of  NATO.                   We should recommend that Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Japan, etc. draft two million 20 year‐olds, hand them  a gun, house them in barracks, and train them to fight wars. At present, they are languishing in coffee bars with their  good‐looking girlfriends, attending free universities, enjoying wonderful national health care systems, riding extensive,  beautiful high speed rail systems, while the traitors in Washington, D.C., screw the American people in every way they  can. I think they have forgotten history.                  Not one idea regarding the wildfires from our elected officials, local, State or federal. They are all too busy out  shopping, I guess.                 L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 4:09 PM  Subject: Fwd: State Ins. Commissioner warns again re higher ins. costs from fires  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David  Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>,  esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff  <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,  bearwithme1016@att.net, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>,  huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>,  blackstone@blastfitness.com, Leodies Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Chris  Field <cfield@ciw.edu>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, fmerlo@wildelectric.net, Raymond Rivas  <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, Joel  Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>,  kwalsh@kmaxtv.com, kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, Tom Lang  <tlang@aquariusaquarium.org>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com,  mmt4@pge.com, "scott.mozier" <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,  nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com, popoff  <popoff@pbworld.com>, russ@topperjewelers.com, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, terry  <terry@terrynagel.com>, Mark Waldrep <mwaldrep@aixmediagroup.com>, yicui@stanford.edu      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 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  3 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. 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.      4            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 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, Mendocino 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.   5                          L. William Harding             Fresno        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  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      6           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:                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 (Prop 103) 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                    1 Carnahan, David From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:04 AM Subject:Fwd: Tell Congress to Protect Our Right to Vote We can all make this a priority. I would like to see our local and county government take pro‐active support.     4th Tuesday in September is the day: https://nationalvoterregistrationday.org/partner‐sign‐up/    Also, everyone can register to vote using www.turbovote.org which will by zip code give voters correct registration  information and links or forms to register to vote.  Knowing that National Voter Registration day is coming up   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Chris Carson <advocacy@lwv.org>  Date: Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:37 AM  Subject: Tell Congress to Protect Our Right to Vote  To: alice.smith@gmail.com      Having trouble reading this email? View in browser Empowering Voters. Defending Democracy. Demand Action to Protect Our Right to Vote SIGN OUR PETITION TODAY    2 Alice, It’s been 53 years since the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was signed into law by President Johnson. And it’s been five years since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted essential provisions in the law in the decision of Shelby County v. Holder that has led to countless attacks on the voting rights of Americans. Now is the time to put those protections back in place.      Will you stand with us and tell Congress to protect our right to vote?   Since the decision in Shelby v. Holder, millions of voters have been purged from the voter rolls across the country. Legislatures in states across the country have also worked to establish institutional obstacles at the voting booth by placing restrictions on early voting, minimizing polling locations in underrepresented communities and mandating discriminatory voter photo ID requirements.   At the same time, special interest, dark money groups are pouring cash into our elections, drowning out the voices of voters everywhere. They’re finding candidates to elect who will push their shady agendas to threaten public health and safety. And that’s not even scratching the surface of dark money’s influence: Reproductive rights, gender equity, climate change, workers’ rights, health care and more are all under attack.   Right now, we are working with our partners to recruit 100,000 activists to stand up and demand Congress take action to protect every vote.   Congress must safeguard our elections: End gerrymandering, fix our campaign finance system and prevent the corrupting influence of dark money groups. Our future is at stake – and your voice is more important than ever before.   Demand action! Add your name to tell Congress to protect our right to vote!   SIGN OUR PETITION TODAY    Yours in the fight, Chris Carson President 3 League of Women Voters 1730 M Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Unsubscribe        1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:00 AM To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Kilpatrick, Brad; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; council@redwoodcity.org; ibain@redwoodcity.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Keene, James; myraw@smcba.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; apardini@cityofepa.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Constantino, Mary; Kniss, Liz (internal); stephanie@dslextreme.com; Perron, Zachary; Lee, Craig; Kan, Michael; Council, City; acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com; allison@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com Subject:Hundreds dead, no one charged: the uphill battle against Los Angeles police killings | US news | The Guardian   https://www.theguardian.com/us‐news/2018/aug/24/los‐angeles‐police‐violence‐shootings‐african‐american  Hundreds dead, no one charged: the uphill battle against Los Angeles police killings The families of Grechario Mack and Kenneth Ross Jr, whose deaths made few headlines, speak out: ‘They took a part of me’ Sam LevinFri 24 Aug 2018 04.00 EDT Catherine Walker closed her eyes, pressed her hands over her ears, and tried to escape. It’s been four months since Los Angeles police killed her son, Grechario Mack, whose death barely made headlines, who did not become a viral hashtag. On a recent afternoon, the 59-year-old mother wore pins with her son’s face and said she was ready to speak. But when the moment came, she could hardly talk. As relatives recounted the killing around her, she tried to shut out the words describing Mack’s last moments. Eventually, she collapsed in her chair in anguish. “I couldn’t save my baby,” she cried as someone held her. “When they took my son’s life, they took a part of me.” Police shot Mack, a 30-year-old father of two, in the middle of a mall on the afternoon of 10 April, as he was holding a kitchen knife and having a mental health crisis. Less than 24 hours later, 2 officers arrived at a park and killed Kenneth Ross Jr, another black resident who struggled with mental illness and was said to be fleeing when police shot him with a military-style rifle. The two families, brought together by Black Lives Matter the day of Ross’s death, are now channeling their grief into a fight for justice – taking on one of the country’s deadliest police systems, where law enforcement killings of black mentally ill residents are so normalized, families struggle to be heard. They face an uphill battle in the most secretive state in the US for police misconduct, in a region where officers who shoot are never prosecuted. “Mentally, I can’t even do nothing right now,” said Fouzia Almarou, Ross’s mother. “But I’m gonna stay strong … I want to make sure my son is remembered.” ‘Police don’t have to care’ Catherine Walker holds an image of her son, Grechario Mack. Photograph: Dan Tuffs for the Guardian Police in America kill more people in days than other countries do in years, and Los Angeles law enforcement has repeatedly led the US with its body count, according to The Counted, a Guardian US project that tracked deaths at the hands of law enforcement. From 2010 to 2014, police in LA county shot 375 people, about one person every five days. Black residents make up 9% of the population, but represented 24% of deaths. Across the US, the odds are stacked against families who look to courts for justice. Charges are extremely rare and convictions even rarer, with the law widely protecting officers who claim they feared for their lives. In LA, the odds of prosecution are effectively zero. Since 2000, there have been no charges for the more than 1,500 shootings by police in the county. Since the district attorney Jackie Lacey was elected in 2012, roughly 400 people have been killed by on-duty officers or died in custody, according to Black Lives Matter LA. Lacey even declined to file charges when the chief of the LA police department (LAPD) called for the prosecution of one of his own officers. 3 “It really greenlights this type of behavior,” said Melina Abdullah, a BLM organizer in LA. “Police don’t have to care about anybody’s life, especially if they’re black or brown or poor.” Abdullah and other activists are part of the Justice Teams Network, which provides “rapid response” after killings. They go to the scenes, interview witnesses, offer the family assistance with press and funerals, and work to counter the police narratives. On a recent afternoon, Abdullah took the Guardian to sites of police killings in south LA. One stop was a quiet alley where three years earlier, LAPD officers had killed Redel Jones, a 30-year-old woman who had a kitchen knife and was fleeing police. Jones, who had struggled on and off with homelessness, loved web design, dancing, cartoon shows, electronic music and rap and had a “brain that was always moving”, said Marcus Vaughn, Jones’s husband, recounting their dream of traveling in a mobile home together. Headlines, however, reduced her to a “suspect” wanted for a robbery. And two years later, Lacey, the prosecutor, reduced her case to a statistic, clearing the policeman with her standard finding of “lawful self-defense”. The district attorney’s office declined an interview request. “They did not care about Redel. Her death was one less black person. How are you just gonna kill a woman like she just meant nothing?” said Vaughn, adding that Jones was less than five feet tall and had bipolar disorder and depression, but was not violent. “If she was a short little white woman, they would’ve treated her with so much tenderness.” Marcus Vaughn, the husband of Redel Jones, at a 2016 rally. Photograph: Amanda Lee Myers/AP Abdullah said she felt an obligation to organize after each killing and a sense of relief when a day passed without a death. Standing near the site of Jones’s killing, she was pained to see a makeshift altar had disappeared and vowed to rebuild it. Jones didn’t get justice, Abdullah said, but she is hoping her next cases could be different. 4 ‘Your aim was to murder my child’ When Quintus Moore saw a TV report saying LAPD officers had shot someone inside the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw mall, he said he felt sad a man had died for no good reason. Later, it dawned on him that he hadn’t heard from his son since the day before. After a series of frantic messages to each other, a visit to the mall and a call with the morgue, the family discovered that their worst fears were true: Grechario Mack was the victim. It was supposed to be a celebratory month for Mack. He had been released from prison on 5 April, five days before the killing, and the family had gathered for a “welcome home” party. Mack had had mental health struggles and past run-ins with the law, and, according to his parents, he was on new medication that was negatively affecting him. Moore said his son had seemed agitated the morning of his death, and that he might have been paranoid or anxious and holding the knife to feel safe. Redel Jones with her daughter, Sicare. Photograph: Courtesy of Marcus Vaughn The LAPD’s report said Mack appeared to be having a “mental health crisis” and was “aggressively waving a long knife”. Police alleged he ignored commands and “ran in the direction” of patrons, leading to the shooting. Two officers fired at him, according to one report. 5 Abdullah, the BLM organizer, rushed to the mall, located in a black neighborhood and just a few blocks from Redel Jones’s killing. She said mall employees told her that Mack had been talking to himself and seemed unwell, but was not attacking anyone. One employee of a nearby store, who declined to give her name, told the Guardian she walked within 10ft of Mack, who did not scare her: “He was just standing there … It wasn’t such a big knife.” Blurry videos from witnesses captured heavily armed officers surrounding Mack and firing a handful of loud shots. Screams echoed throughout the mall as shoppers ducked for cover and ran. When investigators arrived, he was surrounded by shattered glass. The county’s autopsy said Mack suffered at least five gunshot wounds, including one in his back just below his head. “It’s like they got some kind of mandate to kill our black young men,” said Moore, who wears his son’s ashes in a pendant around his neck. Mack’s mother compared the killing to a lynching: “They only went from the noose to the gun … Who gives them the right to be the executioner and the judge?” Abdullah helped Mack’s family organize a vigil. There, she met Fouzia Almarou, who had more bad news: police had just shot and killed her son, Kenneth Ross, in a park 10 miles south of the mall, one day after Mack’s killing. Kenneth Ross with his brother Zion. Photograph: Courtesy of Fouzia Almarou Police have provided few details about the killing in the LA suburb of Gardena. Lt Steve Prendergast told the Guardian that officers were responding to calls of shots fired and ended up chasing Ross, 25, whom they considered a suspect and was “running away from the scene”. 6 Prendergast said there was a “gun found at the scene”, but he couldn’t say whether Ross owned it or had pointed it. One police report said Ross briefly hid in a bathroom and that police shot him with an AR-15 rifle after he exited. That report said the gun had been in his pocket. The county’s official autopsy said he was shot multiple times, including in the back. Almarou said her son, who leaves behind seven younger siblings and a four-year-old son, had bipolar disorder and schizophreniabut was well known to local residents as harmless. “Why did they shoot him in the back?” she said. “Your aim was to murder my child.” At the vigil, Almarou ended up finding somecomfort from Mack’s family, who later donated money to Ross’s funeral. ‘We can’t treat mental illness with murder’ California is considered the strictest state in the US for police confidentiality, with policies that have kept misconduct records hidden and, critics say, created a culture that condones excessive force. “It allows the most abusive officers to continue to operate,” said George Galvis, executive director of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, which co-sponsored legislation to increase transparency. Another bill would stipulate that police could only use deadly force when “necessary”, instead of the current “reasonable” standard. The move, he said, would encourage police to treat people of color the way they often respond to white suspects – de-escalate the situation and work to keep them alive. LAPD has adopted policies meant to encourage police to defuse tense situations, but critics say the reforms aren’t working and aren’t enough. “We can’t treat mental illness with murder,” said Tabatha Jones Jolivet, another BLM organizer. Amid calls for prosecution and legislation, it can be hard for families to keep the spotlight on their loved ones’ lives when their story becomes their death. 7 Fouzia Almarou, who son, Kenneth Ross, was shot by police. Photograph: Dan Tuffs for the Guardian Mack, known as Chario, was an honor roll student who graduated high school early, his mother said. He loved to fish and was fiercely protective of family. His nine-year-old daughter wrote a tribute saying she would miss piggyback rides and museum trips, adding: “I know that you’re always in my heart.” Arianna Moore, Mack’s sister, said her brother motivated her to be courageous: “He would tell me, ‘You could do anything you put your mind to.’” Vaughn, Redel Jones’s husband, said he and their children sometimes struggled to remember what her voice sounded like. His nine-year-old daughter often wakes in the middle of the night shaking after a nightmare watching her mother die. She fears the police. Ross, an avid skateboarder, was so generous, his mother recalled, that as a child he gave his allowance money to homeless people: “His heart was amazing.” Ross’s mother said she was a survivor of domestic violence and that her son took care of her. When times were tough, she said, her son offered the same message of comfort: “You’ll always have me to take care of you.” Since you’re here… … we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a 8 voice to the voiceless, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical. The Guardian’s investigative journalism uncovers unethical behaviour and social injustice, and has brought vital stories to public attention; from Cambridge Analytica, to the Windrush scandal to the Paradise Papers. If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.   Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Carl D <cdarling@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:I also witnessed the accident at Ross road. I agree with the Change.org statement by George Jaquette. It may be too late to stop this Ross Road project but it should not continue on other streets.     Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Carnahan, David From:Sandra Varga <varga.rentals@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 4:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:just cause and housing payments PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.    THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IS SKYROCKETING IN THE BAY AREA.  DO NOT TIE THE HANDS THAT PROVIDE HOUSING.    WE LANDLORDS NOT ONLY HAVE HIGH OPERATING EXPENSES BUT TREMENDOUS LIABILITY.    WE ARE NOT WELFARE PROVIDERS.  WE PROVIDE HOUSING .  DO NOT DETER OWNERS FROM CONSTANTLY IMPROVING  THE RENTAL UNITS.  WE WILL HAVE TO CUT CORNERS AND YOU MAY SEE BLIGHTED BUILDINGS.    SANDRA VARGA  IN THE BUSINESS 40 YRS  1 Carnahan, David From:Joe Meyers <jrameyers@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 12:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Announcements to Daily Post vs. PA Weekly Dear City Council Members, Changing your meeting announcements from the PA Weekly to the Daily Post is penny wise and pound foolish--plus it's hard to believe that a council that will commission very expensive studies at the drop of a hat is penny-pinching on announcements significant to citizens that the Daily Post scarcely reaches. Besides that, independent journalism is more important now than at any other time in living memory. Please reconsider your decision to change. Thank you, Joe Meyers Downtown North 2 Carnahan, David From:Jen Fryhling <jfryhling@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 12:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Communications Dear City Council Members:    Please continue to publish the City's meeting notices and agendas in the Palo Alto Weekly.     My tax dollars to the City should be spent on just that - keeping 67,000 residents of Palo Alto informed. The Daily doesn't deliver to my home nor is there free online access like the Weekly.     As two working parents with kids in Palo Alto schools, the City needs to keep up with the pace of life here and not regress to the dark ages. Palo Alto families need convenience (i.e., Weekly’s free home delivery and online access). There's a reason why mobile gas service, ride sharing, Insta-cart, Amazon, Google Express, etc. are so popular because we need convenience and easy access in Palo Alto.     By comparison, many tech companies provide multiple platforms to communicate and reach people and employees. The fact that the City is actually withdrawing a major platform of communication to residents for a measly $20K savings would be a career ending idea in most companies. Why should we accept grossly lower standards in the City?     Please keep up with your constituency and focus on proposals to increase communications, visibility, and openness with Palo Alto residents rather than less. Continue to publish the City's meeting notices and agendas in the Palo Alto Weekly.     Regards,  Jennifer Fryhling    3 Carnahan, David From:Susan Thomas <sthomas210@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 12:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Notices and Information in Palo Alto Weekly PLEASE do not stop putting city notices and other information in the Palo Alto Weekly.  Many of us do not ever look at  the Post and rely on the Palo Alto Weekly, which is delivered to our homes, as a source of this information.  Because the  circulation of the Palo Alto Weekly is so much greater than that of the Post, the City’s move seems almost like a plot to  minimize informing the public.    Susan Stuermer Thomas  John Nichols Thomas      Sent from my iPad  4 Carnahan, David From:Roy Levin <roy@levin.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 11:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please continue to publish agendas and notices in the Palo Alto Weekly Dear City Council,    The decision to shift publication of City Council agendas and public notices away from the Palo Alto Weekly is penny‐ wise and pound‐foolish.  Surely the savings of $20,000 is negligible in the City’s budget, yet the consequences of moving  this material are far costlier:  a less informed and less engaged citizenry.    If this was truly a decision taken by the City Clerk, as has been reported, then it should be a simple matter for the  Council to overrule it. If, however, the Council itself took this action, then I’m forced to conclude that, by changing to a  publication (the Daily Post) that is distributed much more narrowly than the Weekly, the Council is seeking to reduce  communication with Palo Alto residents.  Or, to put it another way, the Council values that communication at less than  $20,000, which is approximately the cost of two first‐class mailings to each household in Palo Alto per year.  Surely that  is a small price to pay to keep residents informed of the Council’s plans and actions.    Government works best when the governed are engaged with their chosen leaders, however annoying that may  occasionally be to those leaders.  Avoiding engagement, which is an inevitable result of this decision, isolates leaders  from those whose interests they were elected to represent.  Ultimately, those leaders, their constituents, and the entire  city lose.    This short‐sighted action will erode further erode confidence in the Council at a time when precisely the opposite is  needed.  Please countermand this decision swiftly.    Sincerely,    Roy Levin  810 Garland Drive  Palo Alto          5 Carnahan, David From:Jane David <007janelisa@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 10:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:dropping PA Weekly notices slap in the face to residents Dear Council Member,    The staff decision to choose the less expensive paper for publishing notices to save a few bucks at the expense of  reaching many more residents is a slap in the face to us. We have lived in Palo Alto for decades and see increasing  distance between those who run city government and its citizens. This is one more example of saving pennies over  valuing broader communication.    Please take charge of revisiting this consequential decision.    Thank you for your attention,    Jane L. David  3144 David Ave  Palo Alto    Sent from my iPad  6 Carnahan, David From:Sue Purdy Pelosi <sueppr@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 10:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please reconsider pulling the council meeting notices from the weekly I feel strongly that in these days of challenges to our Democracy, concern about a modest budget item should not  remove an important and established method to alert our citizens to our local city meetings.    Thank you     Sue     Sue Purdy ☮ Pelosi    Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.  Dalai Lama      https://www.linkedin.com/in/suepurdypelosi/  7 Carnahan, David From:Alfred Sugarman <asugarma@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 10:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Discontinuance Of Publishing Palo Alto's Meeting Notice and Agenda Ads in the Palo Alto Weekly Dear Sir/Madam, I am a Palo Alto resident and have the Palo Alto Weekly delivered to my house. When I receive it I look forward to reading the city’s agendas of upcoming City Council, planning commission and other city meetings. Please do not discontinue this advertising and leave it in the Palo Alto Weekly. Alfred 650 799 4564 Cell alfred.sugarman Skype 509 757 6351 Fax 650 858 8081 Home 8 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 8:48 AM To:Council, City Cc:Bill Johnson; Palo Alto Weekly Subject:Notice ending ciy meeting notices in the PA Weekly This decision is ill-conceived. We who subscribe to the PA Weekly, or pick iit free at the boxes, want to know when the upcoming city meetings will be held. We don't read the Post as much. You've really got to be living under a rock (sorry, not nice) not to recognize how important the Weekly is to the population. I'm truly surprised at the several incredibly bad opinions that have been reported by the city council or a specific member. Making a decison that might result in fewer residents attending the council meetings has many negative connotations, all of which make you look as if you are oblivious to your voters. Gloria Pyszka 284 East Charleston Palo Alto 9 Carnahan, David From:David Greene <0524dg@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 11:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Clerk Beth Minor Dear Council Member,    Beth Minor’s decision to stop publishing meeting notices in the Weekly will save the city about $20,000 in expenses. But  it is penny‐wise and pound‐foolish.     The Weekly distributes 20,600 copies in Palo Alto, including 14,000 delivered to Palo Alto homes, including mine. The  proposed new contractor, the Daily Post, distributes 6,000 copies with no distribution directly to homes. On a per‐copy  basis, the cost of publishing in the weekly is actually lower than that of the Post. Isn’t the goal of publishing these notices  to reach as many people as possible? I won’t get to see them if they’re not published in the Weekly. Nor will thousands  of other Palo Altans.    The Council should re‐affirm the civic purpose of publishing notices and assert its authority to contract the work to the  vendor who can reach the largest audience cost‐effectively. Leaving this decision as it is, is doing the public a significant  disservice!    David Greene  3144 David Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94303  10 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 10:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please fix this: The Palo Alto Weekly should be the paper for city announcements Dear City Council,  Why eliminate the Palo Alto Weekly as the city’s public announcement platform? You all know the Palo Alto Weekly has  the broadest reach to residents of Palo Alto as a completely local paper with city‐wide distribution, and it’s your  responsibility to communicate agendas and notifications with as many citizens as possible. The city manager should not  have made this wrong decision, and you need to fix this.    You have often said you want the public to be informed and engaged, yet how are we to know what is happening if this  public notification option is eliminated? Do you expect us to seek information on the city website, looking for  notifications? Or go somewhere to pick up the Daily News that is more regional than local? This makes no sense. And,  $20,000 is less than a drop in the bucket — yet money well spent— compared pretty much any other expenditure.    Please continue the longstanding tradition of having the Palo Alto Weekly supply local information we residents need to  participate.    Sincerely,  Cheryl Lilienstein    https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/08/24/city‐to‐stop‐publishing‐meeting‐notices‐in‐weekly‐citing‐cost‐ savings?utm_source=Support+Local+Journalism+Subscribers+%28segmented%29&utm_campaign=075cac606a‐ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_05_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_da52da7593‐075cac606a‐111987821  11 Carnahan, David From:Kerry <kerry.spear@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 8:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Don’t stop advertising in the Palo Alto Weekly   Saving $20k to stop advertising in the Weekly is silly! Where else does our community get the continuity of readership  and home town support other than the Weekly?    I haven't seen Palo Alto ads on NPR or in the NY Times‐ let’s support the PALO ALTO local paper. It’s a bargain.     Kerry Spear  370 Oxford Ave       Sent from my iPhone  12 Carnahan, David From:Kerry <kerry.spear@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 8:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep publishing minutes in the PA Weekly Do not stop publishing in the Weekly!  What are you thinking?    Kerry Spear  370 Oxford Ave  Palo Alto      Sent from my iPhone  13 Carnahan, David From:Finfrock Shirley <samfinf@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 8:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:Bill Johnson Subject:City Public Notices I think it is very short sighted and being pennywise and pound foolish to save $20,000 to put public notices in the Daily  Post rather than the Palo Alto Weekly.    Why save $20,000 and not reach 30% of Palo Residents.    Shirley Finfrock  Barron Park  Long Time Resident since 1969  14 Carnahan, David From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 7:58 PM To:Council, City; Lydia Kou Cc:Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); Filseth, Eric (external) Subject:Palo Ato needs to more informed, not less. Restore the $20K budget for meetings and agenda in the PAW. Hello.    I can't believe the city is cutting $20,000 to publicize its meeting  schedules and agendas just before an election ‐‐ and at a time when we  need to be more informed, not less.   Funny, you keep taking about the need for "community outreach" and  then you cut this?    $20,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to, say Zero Waste's never‐ ending ads tin every issue of every paper especially when PAU ran a  $19,500,000 surplus last year that comes out of our pockets. Cutting  those ads would make some economic and practical sense     Given all the wasteful spending in Palo Alto, I sincerely doubt this move is  motivated by your desire to be economical.   Perhaps you don't like Palo  Alto Online's editorials?  Perhaps you don't like all the taxpayers showing  up at CC and PTC meetings and questioning your decisions?  Perhaps you  don't want voters to be informed?      Whatever your reasons, please see that this silly false economy stops  now and keep publishing the meeting notes and agendas in Palo Alto  Weekly,     Most sincerely,  15   ‐‐   Jo Ann Mandinach  1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301    JoAnn@needtoknow.com  650 269‐0650  16 Carnahan, David From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 6:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: FYI: An important message from the Palo Alto Weekly Obviously, this stinks. -----Forwarded Message----- From: Bill Johnson Sent: Aug 24, 2018 4:41 PM To: sheri11@earthlink.net Subject: An important message from the Palo Alto Weekly 96   View this email in your browser      Dear Subscriber: I wanted to alert you to a disappointing decision by the Palo Alto City Clerk to discontinue publishing the city’s meeting notice and agenda ads in the Palo Alto Weekly. As our story in today’s paper explains, the city is planning on moving its advertising from the Weekly, which distributes 20,600 copies in Palo Alto, including 14,000 directly to homes, to the Daily Post, which circulates just 6,000 copies in the city through news boxes, with no distribution to homes. The stated reason is that this will save the city about $20,000 a year. 17   The Weekly has been publishing the agendas and other notices for the City Council, planning commission and other city boards for over 30 years, and the loss of this business is obviously of concern at a time when local newspapers everywhere are facing significant financial challenges due to declines in retail advertising. Little did we expect our own city government to contribute to this problem so it could save $20,000. But an even greater and more important impact of this change is its threat to a well-informed public. In a community that prides itself on citizen engagement, it is illogical for the city to publish its advertising in a paper that reaches 70% fewer people and doesn't deliver to a single Palo Alto home. And the loss of the city's advertising means fewer resources available to continue the quality local journalism you expect from us. If you are so moved, we would invite you to communicate your thoughts to any City Council member you may know, or the entire Council via the city.council@cityofpaloalto.org email. Obviously personal contact is best. You could also post a comment on the story itself. I don't know whether the Council can be persuaded to reverse this decision, but an expression by concerned residents will certainly make it aware of how vital you believe city-resident communication is, and the importance of the city supporting the community's newspaper. Thanks, as always, for the support you already provide the Weekly through your subscription. Sincerely, Bill Johnson Publisher          ‐‐>   Our mailing address is: Embarcadero Media 450 Cambridge Ave 18   Palo Alto, CA 94306-1507 Add us to your address book Want to change how you received these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list    19 Carnahan, David From:Alice Martineau <aamartineau@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 6:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep City advertising with the Palo Alto Weekly Dear Palo Alto City Council:    I am writing to urge you to reverse the city clerk’s recent decision to discontinue publishing the city’s meeting notices and  agenda ads in the Palo Alto Weekly. These very notices and ads need to be easily accessible in our local paper, with the widest  circulation, if you want to support an active and civically engaged populace in Palo Alto.     We need our independent press in these difficult times and I would hope to see Palo Alto’s city government continue its  support of the excellent Palo Alto Weekly!    Sincerely yours,    Alice Martineau  20 Carnahan, David From:Karl Garcia <karlrob@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 6:07 PM To:Council, City Cc:bjohnson@paweekly.com Subject:City's Notifications... Dear Council,    I would like to register my extreme displeasure upon hearing that you will be discontinuing the publication of official City  Notices with the Palo Alto Weekly.  The Weekly is the paper of record for Palo Alto and the City will be doing the  community and it's citizens a great dis‐service by not publishing in the Weekly.  This is a really bad move.    I understand the announced motivation is a few tens of thousands of dollars savings.    In the City's budget of over 700 million dollars, this seems to me to be a small blip on the radar and certainly not worth  the loss of readily available information this will cause.    I urge you to reconsider this ill‐advised decision and restore publishing the City's notifications with the Weekly.      Karl Garcia  653 Waverley St  Palo Alto, CA  94301      21 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 5:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Horribly sad decision To not place agendas and notices in the Palo Alto weekly is a horrible  decision.  A strong free press is vital to us all.  You should actually place  notices in both local papers as the purpose of the notices is to encourage  citizen participation  in civic affairs not just meet minimal notification  requirements.  The meager savings of $20,000 clearly sends the wrong  message!    Thank you    Paul Machado  22 Carnahan, David From:Cecilia Willer <cecilia_willer@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Disappointed that the City Council meeting notice & agenda is planned to no longer be in the PA Weekly -- I NEVER read the Daily News and ALWAYS read the PA Weekly City Council Members, I am extremely disappointed that the City Council agenda and meeting notice is planned to no longer be in the PA Weekly. I NEVER read the Daily News and ALWAYS read the PA Weekly. I contribute to the PA Weekly monthly so that I can keep abreast of what is happening in Palo Alto. I do not go down town and get the Daily News, given our work schedule. I find it very short sighted to make this change. I realize budgets need to be cut, however making it more of a challenge to the community to find out about council meetings and notices is not a helpful solution. One would wonder if the City Council is interested in keeping the community in the dark versus being transparent and making information readily available. I encourage you to reconsider this plan. Keep the PA community informed. Thanks and please make the right decision! Cecilia & Brad Willer 1270 Byron Street Palo Alto 23 Carnahan, David From:Jim Fruchterman <Jim.F@Benetech.org> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 5:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:Bill Johnson Subject:The City has enough communications problems with citizens and employers as it is Dropping the Weekly, which many residents read, is crazy.  I don’t read the Post.  I do read the Weekly.  And I do read  the city’s posted activities in the Weekly.  It’s the main, and typically only, place I find out about what’s going on in city  government. And I’m not alone.     If you’re doing this to save $20k, I’m sure many residents like me can tell you don’t cut communications to us, cut far  more expensive and less helpful items.     Is reducing citizen engagement in city business a feature or a bug to the council and city staff? We have too much  suppression going on in the country as it is without Palo Alto jumping on the bandwagon.     Don’t do it. And if you do it, be sure you’ll hear a lot more from me on it.      Jim Fruchterman  1850 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301  Resident and employer of 50 people in Palo Alto.     Founder and CEO, Benetech  Email: jim@benetech.org       Twitter: @JimFruchterman    Blog: The Beneblog       480 S. California Ave, Suite 201   Palo Alto, CA 94306   USA   (650) 644‐3406   Fax: (650) 475‐1066  www.benetech.org       Benetech ‐ Technology Serving Humanity   A nonprofit organization     24 Carnahan, David From:Lisa Dondick Nissim <lisa.nissim@geminisols.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 5:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Agenda Dear Council Members,    Please continue to publish meeting agendas and other official notices in the Palo Alto Weekly.  I read the Weekly  because it is delivered directly to me.  I do not have the opportunity to read the Post because there are no distribution  points near my home.  I am distressed you are considering limiting my access to this information by removing it from the  Weekly.    Please reconsider your decision to limit access to this information by changing publications.  Please respond directly to  this email to confirm you will continue to keep me and the rest of Palo Alto informed about what is happening in the city  by continuing to publish announcements in the Palo Alto Weekly.    Sincerely,    Lisa Nissim  1646 Escobita   25 Carnahan, David From:Julianne Frizzell <julianneasla@sonic.net> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 5:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:palo alto weekly For the CPA council  I am disappointed to read that the CPA is planning on moving its advertising from the Palo Alto Weekly, to the Daily Post.   I have been reading the Weekly on a weekly basis (and more often when it was published as a daily) for 25 years. I only see the Post at Sancho’s Taqueria and P.A. Blueprint!  Far more CPA citizens see and read the Weekly than the Post. I think that I am not alone in considering the P.A. Weekly Palo Alto’s news paper.  Please reconsider this action  Thank you  Julianne Frizzell  Julianne Adams Frizzell  julianneasla@sonic.net  650-325-0905  26 Carnahan, David From:charlalou@aol.com Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 5:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Posting Meeting Notices in PA Weekly Please continue to post meeting notices and agenda ads in the Palo Alto Weekly and, if necesssry, please retain the ads  in the Palo Alto Weekly, and perhaps in the Daily Post also to provide even greater coverage.    I am disabled and receive the Palo Alto Weekly at my home but rarely can pick up the Daily Post.  Recently I attended a  City Council meeting where my grand daughter and fellow Girl Scouts made a presentation regarding limiting the use of  plastic drinking straws.     Thank you for your consideration of this request.                       Sincerely yours,                             Charla W Ekstrand  Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app: mail.mobile.aol.com 27 Carnahan, David From:Linda Anderson <andersonlinda911@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 4:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Published Agenda It is my understanding you have decided to publish your meeting notices and agenda ads in the Daily Post as  opposed to the Palo Alto Weekly.     I'm inclined, in a sarcastic vein, to say good move. That is, if you want to govern an even less informed city  than you currently are. The circulation of the Daily Post is less than 1/3 of the Palo Alto Weekly.    Way to go.    Linda Anderson  401 Webster Street  Palo Alto  28 Carnahan, David From:Ross DeHovitz <rossde@mac.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 4:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:This is crazy! I would like to comment on the crazy decision to publish city notices in a paper that is not well read and not home  delivered.     The desire to save money is understandable but this falls in the pennywise and pound foolish department as the number  of people who will be aware of these city decisions and programs will drop precipitously.     If the goal is only to publish so that the fewest people are aware, this is the way to do it. If the goal is to keep the citizens  engaged, i would encourage the city to keep the contract with the most highly read paper in the city    Thanks so much    Ross DeHovitz  29 Carnahan, David From:Robert Lancefield <rklancefield@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 3:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:bjohnson@paweekly.com Subject:Please restore Palo Alto Weekly as source of agendas of upcoming City Council, planning commission and other city meetings. Dear Ms. Mayor and Members of the City Council,    Please restore, immediately, the Palo Alto Weekly as the source of agendas of the Council, Planning Commission and  other city agencies.     I read the Daily Post almost daily. I read the Post every week.     Their format, and depth of reporting are very different.     The Post has news stories on the front page and on one continuation page. I usually read only those two pages. The rest  is advertising that I skip. I can’t imagine the Post will give front page coverage to city agendas and notices. I’m not about  to look through every page of every Post, or to try to remember that city notices are regularly published the same day of  every week or month. Likely result: I’ll never know the agendas.    In contrast, the Weekly places the city agendas close to similar stories about city affairs, not buried in a middle part of  the paper next to real estate and want ads.     The Weekly doesn’t need to put the notices on its front page.    Members of the Council, I urge you to reverse the decision of Beth Minor.     If the City owes the Post money damages for breach of contract, so be it. The expense could be considered a cheap  tutorial for all concerned: the Council, Jim Keene and Ed Shikada, and the city staff, and residents like me.    Respectfully,    Robert K. Lancefield  189 Walter Hays Drive        Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Laurie Hunter <lhunter353@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 7:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Weekly notices As a citizen of Palo Alto I urge you to continue to post your notices in the Palo Alto Weekly so that all citizens are  informed!!! We need a free press to inform us of government matters!!!    Laurie Hunter   353 Lowell Ave   Palo Alto   650.380.0136    Sent from my iPhone  2 Carnahan, David From:david <lischins@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 6:44 PM To:Council, City; editor@paloaltoweekly.com Subject:Penny wise and pound foolish To the City Council members,    Your decision to save $20,000 by curtailing the publication of important information to your constituency seems  wrongheaded on two counts. While you may sometimes wish local citizens were less involved in decisions that affect our  well‐being, that involvement is a vital element in creating the kind of community were we all want to live. By cutting  back on public information to save money, you are also damaging a fragile but critical player in local democracy, the Palo  Alto Weekly. It is my go‐to newspaper for local news, particularly local government.    You should all read Time Magazine's  lament for the loss of local reporting in its August6/13 edition.   It highlights the  huge cutback in local reporting across the nation and its damaging effect. I will quote one line: "That newspapers are a  casualty of the Information Age may quality as irony, but there are deep veins of tragedy involved, especially for  communities that used to have a lot more people paid, by the local paper, to pay attention to what was happening  there.    As a former reporter for the San Jose Mercury News, the Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio, I have watched  with dismay as the career I devoted years to has been defunded, derided and enfeebled. I hope you realize that you're  supporting the agenda of people like our current president when you undermine one of the pillars of our democracy.    Yours Truly,    Dedra Hauser      3 Carnahan, David From:Lea Feinstein <leafeinstein@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 6:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keep the Weekly Greater outreach. Support for local press. Please reconsider the decision to switch notification of council meetings from  the Weekly to the Post.   They both matter, but the Weekly is the people’s paper.   Thanks  Lea Feinstein      www.leafeinstein.com  650‐281‐5669  4 Carnahan, David From:Sylvia Gartner <sgartner@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 6:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Weekly As a regular Palo Alto Weekly reader, especially of their wonderful Daily Express email service, I was very disturbed to  read Bill Johnson's email about your removing your ad business from the Weekly and moving it to the Daily Post.    This seems very odd to me.  Why would you want to advertise in the smaller; and, in my opinion, less prestigious local  newspaper?  I am a Weekly subscriber and support their excellent reporting on local issues.    Please revisit this bad move and return the City's ad business to the Weekly.    Sylvia Gartner  Moreno Avenue  5 Carnahan, David From:Jean Griffiths <j2ean2@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 6:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:PA Weekly vs PA Daily! Palo Alto Weekly has a good point as they reach a larger section of the community than the PA Daily for public notices. I realize $20K is $20K but it’s not going to bust the budget. Jean Griffiths. PA resident 6 Carnahan, David From:M Chalmers Smith <ntiviv@me.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 5:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Publishing City Council notices Please reverse your decision and instead continue to publish notices of upcoming City Council meetings in the Palo Alto  Weekly.    What a poor decision you made to move the notices to the Post.     I would like to hear your reasoning for the change. Saving a bit of money is not adequate, as far as I am concerned. You  need to reach the broadest demographic possible.     Thank you,  Meg Smith  315 Homer Ave #306  Palo Alto, CA 94301  7 Carnahan, David From:Pat Bartz <pabartz9@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 5:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:Pat Subject:your decision to save 20K by unsavory action Importance:High Hello: I have lived in Palo Alto for 40 years and find that the city management, if that’s what you call it anymore, has deteriorated significantly. I strongly suggest that you, the Palo Alto City Clerk, negate your recent decision to save $20,000 by publishing City agendas and other notices for the City Council in the Daily Post, which has no local delivery. What a sham!! Certainly there are more acceptable ways to the public, who fund city activities, to save this small amount of money than by switching advertising publications.       Patricia Bartz 713 Oregon Avenue 8 Carnahan, David From:Rayme Adzema <raymejareau@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 5:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Weekly Please do not take revenue away from the Palo Alto Weekly by posting city agendas and other items in the Daily Post.  The Weekly is the paper of record in Palo Alto, contains actual local journalism and should be supported by the city and  its taxpayers.     Thank You,  Rayme Waters  1280 Pine Street, Palo Alto    Sent from my iPhone  9 Carnahan, David From:Susan Wolfe <wolfeperson@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 5:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Publish agenda and meeting notices in the Palo Alto Weekly Please change your mind about this immediately. The Post is just not a respected or widely distributed paper. And the  Palo Alto Weekly is a good paper that deserves the City’s support.    Thank you.    Susan Wolfe   350 Campesino Avenue     Sent from my iPhone  10 Carnahan, David From:Rafe Mazzeo <rmazzeo@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 5:32 PM To:Council, City To the City Council,    I am writing to protest your recent decision to move your meeting notice and  agenda ads from the Palo Alto Weekly to the Daily Post.  I do not think this makes sense: the Weekly reaches over three times  the number of homes and plays a MUCH more important role in the civic  life of this town.  I always read the Weekly and find much that is useful in  there. The Post is pretty invisible as far as I and many others are concerned.  I am sure you are as aware as I of how much on the edge any print news   service is, and a $20K difference is surely nontrivial to them.    I hope you will reconsider. You are doing the city genuine long‐term damage by   this action.     Rafe Mazzeo    +‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐+      Professor Rafe Mazzeo             Office phone: 650‐723‐1894  Department of Mathematics                Mobile: 650‐714‐5718  Stanford University  Stanford, CA 94305 http://math.stanford.edu/~mazzeo          11 Carnahan, David From:Lorraine Menuz <lmenuz@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 4:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Palo Alto weekly   I find it quite upsetting that the council continues to make decisions not in the best interest of Palo Alto residents. Now  you are set to discontinue posting council agendas in The Weekly. I and many other subscribers want to be able to  access that information in the paper. I hope you will reconsider your decision.   Lorraine Menuz       Sent from my iPhone  12 Carnahan, David From:Elzabeth Weiss <paneurhythmy@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 4:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:The importance of The Weekly Dear Council Members,  As a 30+ year resident of Palo Alto (who, by the way, has never written a letter to any government body), I would like to  weigh in on your purported decision to stop posting Council and  Committee meeting times, agendas, etc., in The  Weekly and change to some other publication.  While of course I do not know the reasons for this decision, I would like  to point out to you that The Weekly is a high quality and widely read paper that I almost always take the time to a least  scan.  The other paper is not even on my radar.  In my opinion, Palo Alto's citizenry will be far less well‐informed as a  result of this action ‐‐ so unless that is what you are trying to achieve, this strikes me as a bad decision which I would  urge you to reconsider.  Thank you for your attention.  Respectfully,  Elizabeth Weiss  13 Carnahan, David From:Betty Lum <bylum@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 4:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:CITY CLERK'S DECISION Dear Honorable City Council Members, Perhaps because I grew up in a small town in Hawaii where local journalism was considered very important, and a routine part of our lives, I have always believed in, and supported it whenever possible. I have been a paid subscriber of the Palo Alto Weekly since its inception, and was deeply disappointed to learn recently that our City Clerk has decided to discontinue publishing the city's meeting notices and agenda ads in the Weekly, using instead, the Post, which is not widely circulated. It is very difficult to get The Post daily as it is not distributed to homes; being available only in news boxes around the city. There have been MANY TIMES when the boxes in South Palo Alto areas have been empty by mid-morning (around 10 - 11 a.m.), and we have had to go without the Post. I can obtain the agendas and meeting notices as well as the Daily Post online, but there are many in the city who either have no access to computers, or do not have the ability to access the information online. I'm sure many citizens would appreciate it if the City Clerk will re-consider the online distribution of city meeting notices and agendas. Could this possibly be a request from Council to the City Clerk? Thank you very much. Betty Lum 4202 Suzanne Drive 650-493-6876 wanted to alert you to a disappointing decision by the Palo Alto City Clerk to discontinue publishing the city’s meeting notice and agenda ads in the Palo Alto Weekly. 14 Carnahan, David From:Clay Lambert <clay_lambert@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 3:18 PM To:Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Poor decision to change public notices Ms. Minor, Ms. Kniss and distinguished members of council, I read with interest in the Palo Alto Weekly that you have decided to switch from publishing agendas in the Palo Alto Weekly to the Daily Post. This decision may have been pennywise, but it was certainly pound foolish. As you know, the PA Weekly is the more widely read of the two and far more widely read and respected by actual residents of Palo Alto — you know, the people who would be most interested in all those government meetings. The goal of publication, I presume, is to increase civic engagement. That goal is priceless and I simply can't believe that you would thwart it for $20,000 a year. I presume there is something else going on here. It is also germaine to note that local journalism is imperiled here and elsewhere. Trump tariffs are raising the cost of newsprint on the order of 30 percent overnight. While we often hear how difficult it is for public servants like policemen and teachers to live on the peninsula, almost all of them make more than Palo Alto Weekly reporters. The Palo Alto Weekly is among the most respected local newspapers in the state and there are vanishingly few like it across the fruited plain. As busy as i am, if not for the weekly newspaper and it's in depth reporting about local institutions, I would know almost nothing about my community. As a public service, you should be supporting such an institution rather than subverting it. (With due respect, the Daily Post is nothing like the Weekly, as you well know. I've lived here for 16 years and I've never heard one of my neighbors reference it. It's meant for commuters and people hanging out in coffee shops who, by and large, don't pay your salaries.) Furthermore, I'm deeply disturbed by the thought that you didn't return phone calls seeking comment. It's as much my money we're talking about as yours, and I think all of us deserve an explanation. Sorry to be so fired up about this. Respectfully, Clay Lambert 3696 Bryant St. Palo Alto 15 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Kennedy <jeanne.kennedy@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 1:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Removing your advertising from the Palo Alto Weekly Dear City Council members,    I hope you will reconsider and continue to support the Palo Alto Weekly.  Any city would be proud to have a weekly  paper that is as distinguished as ours.  It deserves your support as well as ours.    Sincerely,    Jeanne  D. Kennedy  680 Lowell Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301‐3817  650‐325‐0177  cell:  650‐868‐3125  jeanne.kennedy@comcast.net    1 Carnahan, David From:Kaye Storm <kayestorm@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 7:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Don't stop publishing in the Palo Alto Weekly I’m writing to express my disappointment that the city plans to stop publicizing agendas and notices for the City Council,  planning commission and other city boards in the Palo Alto Weekly. This smacks of a desire to reduce transparency  rather than encourage it. Of all the silly and unnecessary expenses approved by the city (not the least of which was the  road “drainage project” a few years ago in Southgate, my neighborhood) surely the $20,000 in annual savings could be  achieved by cutting other more frivolous items from the budget.  I consider the Daily Post just an annoyance and would  never make an effort to pick up or read a copy. I suspect many Palo Alto residents have the same opinion. So if the City is  really interested in citizen engagement, continuing to publish in the Weekly is a no‐brainer.    Kaye Storm  kayestorm@gmail.com  650.326.4800    2 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Brown <jbrownconnect@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 10:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Meeting notices Please explain the reason for discontinuing publication of meeting notices and agendas for council and commission  meetings in the Weekly.  I do not want them delivered electronically and I never see or read the Post. I will therefore be  out of the loop which may be the reason for this move.  Is an ill‐informed public worth the meager savings you will  realize? Poor choice. No transparency.  Jeffrey Brown    Sent from my iPhone  3 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 9:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson Subject:Just say."NO" to penal enlargement!! No new police station!!!!!           4                     1 Carnahan, David From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 2:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Announcements Dear Council Members,    I was completely taken aback at the decision to switch announcements of public city meetings from the Palo Weekly to  the Daily Post. The advantage of the Palo Alto Weekly is that it reaches all Palo Alto households and is also available in  the kiosks all week.     This proposed switch violates the spirit of transparency that is understood by the requirement that these city  announcements be placed in print.  The Daily Post is a much smaller publication with limited distribution. In addition, there is no way of knowing how many  of those readers are even Palo Alto residents. Finding a Daily Post is unreliable, a very hit or miss affair. After mid‐late  afternoon most kiosks are empty. Those who commute out of town may not easily pick one up in the morning. Other  people may not have a kiosk nearby, or do not run errands every day.      I trust that the council will take action to continue to publish announcements of public city meetings in the Palo Alto  Weekly.  Or better still, and for even greater transparency, have the announcements placed in both papers.    Sincerely,  Margaret Heath      2 Carnahan, David From:julie <julie@kaufmann-lloyd.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 2:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:City council agendas Switching the publication of the city council agendas to a newspaper with a circulation of just 6,000 is a disservice to the  residents of Palo Alto.  Please reconsider.  Sincerely,  Julie Lloyd   Barron Park     Sent from my phone. Please excuse my typos.   3 Carnahan, David From:cindy goral <cindy@goral.org> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 1:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:reconsider putting public notices in Palo Alto Weekly Dear Honorable Council Members,  I recently read that the Palo Alto City Council is going to stop putting public notices in the Palo Alto Weekly and only publish in the Daily Post. I understand that it will save $20,000. However, the Palo Alto Weekly reaches a lot more citizens in Palo Alto. It distributed over 20,000 copies including 14,000 directly to homes, whereas the Daily post distributes only about 6000 copies with zero home distribution.   It is important that people in Palo Alto are kept aware of the city's public notices.  The average age of Palo Alto voters is  over 60 years old.  We have many citizens who rely on home delivery of their news to keep them informed of what is  going on.  I urge you to reconsider your decision and continue to publish in the Palo Alto Weekly.    Cindy Goral  4018 Laguna Way  Palo Alto, CA 94306  4 Carnahan, David From:Melanie Cross <melaniecross@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 1:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public Notification   Dear City Council Members,    I am writing to request that you continue publicizing agendas and other notices for the city in the P.A. Weekly as more of  us read that publication than the alternative paper.  Please try to be more inclusive, rather than cut down on informing  the public.  $20,000 is part of the cost of doing city business.  If we can’t afford that, then let’s figure to a cheaper way to  maintain the same level of publicity.      Thank you,  Melanie Cross  945 Matadero ave  Palo Alto  CA  94306  5 Carnahan, David From:Peter Mueller <pklausm@me.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 1:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: [bpa-issues: 1654] Re: [bpa-misc: 7886] [Fwd: PA Weekly Publisher's article. --Do you know about this?] Begin forwarded message:  From: Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>  Date: August 26, 2018 at 10:29:11 PDT  To: bpa‐issues@googlegroups.com  Subject: Re: [bpa‐issues: 1654] Re: [bpa‐misc: 7886] [Fwd: PA Weekly Publisher's article. ‐‐Do you  know about this?]  Reply‐To: bpa‐issues@googlegroups.com  I hope everyone is passing on their comments to the City Council and not just keeping this an internal  discussion ‐ that won't help. Let's all tell them.   winter  Here is the City Council email address:   City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>    On Aug 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, Luce, Gwen wrote:      Ditto!    Sent from my iPhone    On Aug 26, 2018, at 9:19 AM, 'Peter Mueller' via Barron Park  Association: Issues <bpa‐issues@googlegroups.com> wrote:    My spouse & I concur w Nancy. We hardly ever read the “Post”,  although you they do a good job, and we see the Weekly delivered to  our house routinely. City cost considerations are important. So thinking  & factors underlying the current decision deserve public discussion.  For  instance, why not both? Consider cost per taxpayer, and cost/citizen  interacting w city government in which paper published agenda played  a role or other benefit factors.  The paper owners should also assess the value of the city government  agendas to their advertisers and to the revenues from their readers, etc.  Thanks, Peter K Mueller    On Aug 25, 2018, at 21:36, njh  <njpersonal@gmail.com> wrote:    6 Dear Lydia Kou,    I want to write a response, but need to know if the city  council voted on this change or if the mayor decided it.  It's outrageous ‐‐ so much for transparent government!  (The responses on Nextdoor.com are interesting)  Nancy    Here's the PA Weekly Publisher's article:    An important letter from Palo Alto Weekly Publisher Bill  Johnson    I wanted to alert you to a disappointing decision by the  Palo Alto City Clerk to discontinue publishing the city’s  meeting notice and agenda ads in the Palo Alto Weekly.    As our story in today’s paper explains, the city is  planning on moving its advertising from the Weekly,  which distributes 20,600 copies in Palo Alto, including  14,000 directly to homes, to the Daily Post, which  circulates just 6,000 copies in the city through news  boxes, with no distribution to homes. The stated reason  is that this will save the city about $20,000 a year.    The Weekly has been publishing the agendas and other  notices for the City Council, planning commission and  other city boards for over 30 years, and the loss of this  business is obviously of concern at a time when local  newspapers everywhere are facing significant financial  challenges due to declines in retail advertising. Little did  we expect our own city government to contribute to  this problem so it could save $20,000.    But an even greater and more important impact of this  change is its threat to a well‐informed public. In a  community that prides itself on citizen engagement, it is  illogical for the city to publish its advertising in a paper  that reaches 70% fewer people and doesn't deliver to a  single Palo Alto home. And the loss of the city's  advertising means fewer resources available to continue  the quality local journalism you expect from us.    If you are so moved, we would invite you to  communicate your thoughts to any City Council  member you may know, or the entire Council via the  7 city.council@cityofpaloalto.org email. Obviously  personal contact is best. You could also post a comment  on the story itself.    I don't know whether the Council can be persuaded to  reverse this decision, but an expression by concerned  residents will certainly make it aware of how vital you  believe city‐resident communication is, and the  importance of the city supporting the community's  newspaper.    Thanks, as always, for the support you already provide  the Weekly through your subscription.    Sincerely,  Bill Johnson  Publisher    ‐‐‐‐‐‐  Lydia,  Thanks for an explanation,    Nancy Hamilton        ‐‐  This email list is maintained by the Barron Park  Association. Join or renew your BPA membership, or get  more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.  Need to check membership status? Contact  barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.  Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of  the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the  Barron Park Association or the BPA Board.  ‐‐‐ You received this message because you are  subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park  Association: Miscellaneous" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving  emails from it, send an email to bpa‐ misc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to bpa‐ misc@googlegroups.com.  8 For more options, visit  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https‐ 3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwIFaQ&c=fie8C ffxQEyLNW7eyn‐hJg&r=U‐uAubRp662MIYgiT6Fg6N‐ XFCfzTqviAPfNji7y_bI&m=EByOExrIv4oBHkYEBwh3WBD fmKSfd‐UbombeRcUG9Xk&s=x5‐ sUpNhGFBBGvNPEmF9Q7wgZcV1OrLjD0Afa04rabE&e=.    ‐‐  This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.  Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information,  at bpapaloalto.org.  Need to check membership status? Contact  barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.  Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and  do not necessarily represent those of the Barron Park Association or the  BPA Board.  ‐‐‐  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "Barron Park Association: Issues" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send  an email to bpa‐issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to bpa‐issues@googlegroups.com.  For more options, visit  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https‐ 3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwIFaQ&c=fie8CffxQEyLNW7eyn ‐hJg&r=U‐uAubRp662MIYgiT6Fg6N‐ XFCfzTqviAPfNji7y_bI&m=EByOExrIv4oBHkYEBwh3WBDfmKSfd‐ UbombeRcUG9Xk&s=x5‐ sUpNhGFBBGvNPEmF9Q7wgZcV1OrLjD0Afa04rabE&e=.  *Wire Fraud is Real*.  Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number  you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender  does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal  communication.    ‐‐   This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.   Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at  bpapaloalto.org.  Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.  Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not  necessarily represent those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board.  ‐‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron  Park Association: Issues" group.  9 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa‐ issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to bpa‐issues@googlegroups.com.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.    ‐‐   This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.   Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.  Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.  Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent  those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board.  ‐‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association:  Issues" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa‐ issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to bpa‐issues@googlegroups.com.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  10 Carnahan, David From:Petersen, Joe <JPetersen@kilpatricktownsend.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 12:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Decision to stop posting in Palo Alto Weekly Please add my name to the list of people who are displeased with the decision to stop posting meeting agenda in the  Palo Alto Weekly. This decision seems motivated to curtail civic engagement and is highly improper.      Joseph Petersen  Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP  Silicon Valley and New York  office 650 614 6427 | cell 917 859 9680  jpetersen@kilpatricktownsend.com | www.kilpatricktownsend.com    * Admitted in California and New York        ________________________________    Confidentiality Notice:  This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications  Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this  message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney‐client privileged information and  attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the  information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by  return e‐mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in  any manner.    ________________________________    ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding  penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any  transaction or matter addressed herein.  11 Carnahan, David From:Ari Cartun <arilevmc@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 12:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Saving a measly $20K... ...and missing most of the city by switching from the PA Weekly to the Daily Post. I look at the Weekly each week. I  almost never look at the Post. The Weekly is on my driveway each Friday. If I pass a box with Posts in it  I may peek at a headline but rarely take one.   Ari Cartun   3506 Emerson   Palo Alto   Enviado desde mi iPhone/iPad  Sent from my iPhone/iPad    12 Carnahan, David From:Lina Crane <lina.crane@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 10:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:City Meeting and Agenda Notice     Please restore notice of  council and agenda meetings to the Palo Alto Weekly. The Daily will not suffice, as it  doesn't deliver to households in our community but rather to newsboxes which may or maynot be available.  The Weekly distributes 20,600 copies , including 14,000 directly to homes.   Kindly advise Ms. Minor.    Lina F Crane   140 Lois Ln   Palo Alto Ca  ‐‐   LFC  from linaL    1 Carnahan, David From:Donna Silverberg <donna.silverberg@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Weekly Dear City Council,  Please reconsider your decision not to post City Council Meetings dates in the Palo Alto Weekly, which is a newspaper  one relies on for excellent news and comments about Palo Alto issues.  Best would be to post the meetings in both papers, the Weekly and the Daily Post and support our free press – we need  it more than ever!  Thank you,  Donna Silverberg  2 Carnahan, David From:Anne Cribbs <acribbs@basoc.org> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Disappointed in Decision to stop printing public notices and commission agendas in the PA Weekly Good morning. as a longtime advertising and public relations executive in Palo Alto and a current member of the Park  and Recreation Commission,  moving to the Post with its limited circulation is a foolish decision.  I hope the City will  reconsider. It is important for the community to have info delivered by the Palo Alto Weekly with the Weekly’s broader  distribution!    Thank you.      Anne Warner Cribbs OLY President and CEO BASOC - the bay area sports organizing committee 1960 Olympian 2275 East Bayshore, Suite 115 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ph. 650.323.9400 Fx: 650.323.9403 415.264.2067 acribbs@basoc.org www.basoc.org         3 Carnahan, David From:Jatin Parekh <jatin.parekh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Weekly decision Hello Council members,     I heard that you all have decided to move publication of announcements to Daily Post. Palo Alto weekly is delivered free  at home but not post. This makes it easier for us to be abreast of related news. I would like you all to reverse the  decision and continue publishing in palo alto Weekly. You may also start publishing it in POST as a part of broader  outreach effort but discontinuing in palo alto weekly may make  financial sense but it is at cost of reducing awareness.    Jatin  4 Carnahan, David From:Crystal Casey <caseycm2007@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pulling City Council news from Weekly Dear Council Members,   Your decision to stop publishing City Council schedules and agendas in Palo Alto Weekly is concurrent and consistent  with your lack of support for Palo Alto small business and long‐time institutions here. I also wonder if it’s an effort to  make it more difficult for Palo Altans to participate in city government.     Please reconsider this ill‐conceived decision.     Sincerely,  Crystal M. CASEY  2051 Wellesley St.  PA   6507998582    Sent from my iPhone  Follow me on Twitter @SVgourmand  5 Carnahan, David From:Lynnie Melena <lynniemelena@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:njpersonal Subject:Meeting Notices in the Weekly Dear City Council Members, I was surprised, actually shocked, to see that the City will not longer publish meeting notices in the Weekly and will instead publish in the Post. This decision may meet the letter of the law about public notices but it does not actually serve as a public notice to the widest possible audience. It would be one thing if these were legal notices that few people read. But people actually read the Weekly and look for public hearing notices. Publishing in the Weekly is one of the most cost effective ways to do this. Please reverse this decision. Lynnie Melena 6 Carnahan, David From:Carina Rossner <carina@carinarossner.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep noticed published in the PA Weekly The weekly does a great job not only of distributing the news but also of engaging the community in its content.      Thank you  Carina   7 Carnahan, David From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Decision not to advertise the City's meetings in the Palo Alto Weekly Dear City Council,    I hope the City will reconsider its decision not to advertise the city's formal meetings in the Palo Alto Weekly  as it has always done.  I rarely see the Daily.  I will be unable to stay abreast of what is happening in my city  government!    The Weekly is an invaluable resource to all of us.  When I travel, I stay up to date with the Weekly's excellent  online Monday through Friday content.  Besides the need to stay abreast of what's happening in our city  government, the honest local news that the Weekly provides helps protect democracy.  We should all support  the Weekly.  Please have the staff reverse this wrong‐headed decision.    Sincerely,    Shannon Rose McEntee     410 Sheridan Avenue  Palo Alto      8 Carnahan, David From:Melo <meloniebrophy@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 5:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Citizen communication Are you open to re‐considering your decision to publish in both community papers, so that more citizens can be aware  of what issues are before the city council?  Thx!     Sent from my iPhone  9 Carnahan, David From:jan@thomson.org Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 4:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Notices of City Meetings   I am writing to express my serious concern about the decision to move notices of city meetings from the Palo Alto  Weekly, which is mailed to over  14,000 residents, including my family, to the Daily Post, which distributes less than half that number by way of  newspaper boxes at a few locations.     I am hoping that this decision is not intended to reduce information available to residents and to reduce the number of  residents that show up at city meetings to speak to issues of concern and importance. It certainly can be read that way  because that is what will happen. Palo Alto has long stood for community involvement and an open government. This  action will seriously undermine that. It is absolutely not in the best interests of the community.    The justification for this of saving $20,000 is really absurd, given the city budget and the taxes paid by residents to  support a city government that should be doing everything it can to encourage an open exchange of information and  resident participation.     I think this issue needs to be on a city council agenda. It is not appropriate that it be made by the City Clerk without  input from the community. Please let me know when this will be scheduled.    Thank you very much for your immediate attention to this important issue.    Jan Thomson  810 Garland Drive  Palo Alto    10 Carnahan, David From:Prince Shah <princeshah@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 4:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Advertising in the PA weekly I am very unhappy to find out that the city will be moving its advertising dollars to the daily Post. The PA weekly is an  institution and bastion of good journalism. I shop locally and pay substantial taxes to the city. I request you to reconsider this and keep the advertising to Palo Alto's main news organization.    Regards,  Prince    ‐‐   Prince Shah, MD, FACP, FACG  11 Carnahan, David From:David Perry <dperry2@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 3:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Publishing the agendas and other notices for the City Council, planning commission and other city boards Council,  WTH!.The above agendas and notices belong in the Palo Alto Weekly. Any of you who do not support reversing this  ridiculous decision will receive no support or vote from me in the next election.  1 Carnahan, David From:Helen Baumann <hbbaumann@aol.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 3:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Notices in the Weekly Dear Clerk, As a faithful reader of the Weekly, who never sees the Post, I would like to add my voice to those objecting to the change in where you post notices of city meetings. The Weekly is worth the extra cost because it is read by many more people. Please reconsider what I find to be a "penny wise but pound foolish" decision. Helen Baumann 151 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 2 Carnahan, David From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 2:32 PM To:Minor, Beth; Council, City Subject:changing newpapers for public notification of meetings Hello.. I would like to voice my opposition to changing form the Palo Alto Weekly to the Daily Post for posting the city's meeting notices and agenda ads notices. The Daily has a much smaller circulation and is not delivered to resident's door. Therefore to select them only on the basis of cost is foolish; they are providing less for your dollar. Many times the newspaper boxes belonging to the Daily Post are empty, a paper can not be obtained even after trying multiple locations. Some locations appear to have been abandoned completely but the boxes have not been removed. This gives the appearance of wider distribution than is actual. The Weekly always posts the notices on Friday; I receive the paper and know where to look. The Daily Post could include the city's meeting notices and agenda ads on any day making it easier to miss. The above change and decrease in actual availability of the city's public meeting notices and agendas is particularly troubling as the City's webpage must have recently been "upgrade:" which, to me, resulted in it being MUCH harder to find agendas and information on meetings. The combination of the 2 will result in fewer residents being informed and pose a challenge to those in the public who wish to remain engaged and informed. Freedom of information and the flow of information are vital to a functioning Democracy. I believe a "world class city" like Palo Alto can afford to provide adequate notice of City meeting and agendas to city residents. I would respectfully ask this decision be re-evaluated and reversed. There must be other ways to save on money. Thank you so much. Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451 3 Carnahan, David From:Don Kenyon <dckenyon@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 2:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:re: Removing advertising city agendas in PA Weekly Coucil members,    I think it is a serious mistake to remove PA Weekly from posting agenda of the council and other city meetings,    This paper is delivered to EVERY home in the city, not just in newstands.    This is not the place to cut costs at the expense of information to the citizens.    Thank you,    Don Kenyon’  Walter Hays Drive  4 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:37 PM To:J. Robert Taylor; Council, City Subject:RE: Public Notice Hi Bob,      Thank you for your email.  The public can subscribe to get email notifications regarding agendas, here is the link,  https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/CAPALO/subscriber/new?topic_id=CAPALO_10.    The email is sent out every Thursday evening and contains the most current agendas and reports for the upcoming  Monday meeting and the Council and Council Standing Committee meetings occurring 11 days later.   In the event that  an agenda gets revised on say the Friday before the meeting, another email gets sent out advising the subscribers of the  update.  We have provided this service for several years now.    Here is what the email would look like, the blue underlines are links to the agendas, which contains links to the actual  reports.  You are subscribed to City Council Meeting Agendas/Minutes/Reports for City of Palo Alto. This information has recently  been updated, and is now available.   City Council and Standing Committee Notices    August 27, 2018 - Sp. City Council Meeting REVISED Agenda and Packet  Agenda Item 3 - Contract with DeSilva - Memo - Council Question  Removed: Agenda Item 4  Agenda Item 7 - Pets In Need Agreement and Animal Shelter Improvements - Staff Report  Agenda Item 8 - Eviction Relocation Emergency Ordinance - Staff Report & Updated Title  Agenda Item 9 - Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and Protective Community - Staff Report  September 4, 2018     ‐     Sp. Finance Committee Meeting Agenda and Packet  This Agenda will be produced on August 30, 2018   *****  Legal Notices  Beginning September 1, 2018, Legal Notices, such as Public Hearing Notices, tentative City Council agendas, etc. will be  published in the Daily Post, typically in the Friday Issue.        *****  5 Board and Commission Recruitment ‐ Flyer | Applications  If you need any further information please let me know.    Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: J. Robert Taylor <jrtpaca@gmail.com>   Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 12:36 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Public Notice    Dear Counsel:    I am in favor of using the cheapest 'print' available to satisfy the legal requirements for public notice, however the City  could keep a subscribed database for those who want to get notices electronically via email.  This could potentially give  more effective and far reaching notice to all those who have right and interest.    The future will eliminate the "printed"  notice entirely, we just are not quite there yet.    Thanks for you help.    Bob Taylor    480 Marlowe St.  Palo Alto, Ca   6 Carnahan, David From:Michael Ackerman <woadude@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 1:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto weekly publishing of agendas, etc As a 60+ year resident of Palo Alto I deplore your recent decision to not renew the city’s agenda‐ publishing contract  with the Palo Alto Weekly. The Weekly is not only a far superior publication to the Palo Alto Post in every respect, but  for many residents it is the only one they ever see.   Furthermore, in spite of what you may think, not everyone in  today’s world relies on the internet, nor should they have to.   I urge you to strongly reverse your recent decision to no longer support the Palo Alto Weekly.    Michael Ackerman   1322 Tasso Street  Palo Alto,CA  esqpa@aol.com  7 Carnahan, David From:Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:25 PM To:Stump, Molly Cc:Minor, Beth; Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Subject:Your comments to the City Council Molly, The comments you apparently sent to the City Council over the weekend regarding the public notice advertising situation were forwarded to me by a Barron Park resident who saw them in an online post on the Barron Park listserv. It would have been nice to have been copied on your and Beth's comments to the council directly rather than reading them on a neighborhood blog. I want to make absolutely clear that Beth and I never arrived at an "understanding" regarding the RFP and the contract for print publication of the city's public notices, as you state. In two separate and very congenial meetings I reiterated our objections to the flawed process and tentative decision and recommended that she consider bringing the policy question to the Council (the exact same conversation I had with you and the mayor) or consider entering into contracts with both newspapers. I also proposed that the city do online advertising, and she asked that I prepare a proposal for that. I presented that proposal to her and David on Friday, Aug. 17 and clearly separated the issue of possible online advertising from the matter of the city's contract for publishing agendas. I stated that we continued to hope she would reconsider the print ad contract. Apparently, however, a decision had already been reached to execute the contract with the Post, since this fact was found by my staff on the city's website on Monday. It was extremely disappointing to learn of this decision, especially in that way, in part because it hadn't been mentioned just two days earlier. As you know, I have attempted for more than a year to make city staff (and both mayors) aware of how moving its advertising from the Weekly to the Post would be viewed in the community and the adverse reaction it would bring. And I patiently followed your procedures confident that city staff would reconsider on the merits. This was a completely predictable and avoidable controversy because it is so obvious that a move to the Post is a decision to drastically reduce community awareness of city government activities. There is simply no defense of it other than the savings of $20,000. The treatment of the Weekly throughout this process and the actions of the city staff to defend it after the fact have been enormously disappointing and disrespectful of the community. And your proclaiming that "the process is done" based on legal grounds is a regrettable final expression of that disrespect. 8 Bill William S. Johnson Publisher, Palo Alto Weekly  President & CEO, Embarcadero Media 450 Cambridge Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306  650.326.8210 650.223.6505 (direct)     9 Carnahan, David From:Tricia Kellison <tkellison@girlsms.org> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Changing ditribiution of City Council minutes Dear City Council,    Please reconsider your decision to use the Daily Post instead of the Palo Alto Weekly to distribute your meeting minutes.  The distribution will reach far fewer homes, for a very small cost savings. Copies of the Daily Post are often unavailable.  It is a commercial publication with no roots in our City.    Please reconsider your direction on this important matter.    Tricia Kellison  2802 Louis Road  1 Carnahan, David From:holzemer/hernandez <holz@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 3:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:City's Decision to Replace PA Weekly Announcements Attachments:Dear City Council Members.docx Dear Council Members,  Please see Word attachment. Thank you.    August 27, 2018 Dear City Council Members, We’re writing to express to you our disagreement with the City Staff’s recommendation to change the advertising venue for the City’s own meeting notices and agendas from the Palo Alto Weekly to the Palo Alto Post. Moving this advertising from a well-circulated, honored publication, which distributes over 20,000 copies including delivery to more than 14,000 homes to another less available publication that has only 6,000 copies doesn’t make any logical sense. Although, the reason for the change seems reasonable (reducing City costs), the effect of this decision will actually reduce citizen involvement and produce less informed citizens on what is happening in our City. Instead, as a Council, you should want more citizen involvement and awareness where residents feel that their thoughts are part of the decision-making process. Moving this advertising to a publication that has fewer access points (less circulation, no home delivery, only street boxes) is not the way to truly “save money”. There are certainly other ways the City could reduce costs, for example, by not hiring unnecessary outside consultants to fight “citizen-lead initiatives”. Please do the right thing, reinstate the City advertising back to the Palo Alto Weekly and consider putting the City’s announcements in both the Weekly and Post for more citizen involvement. Sincerely, Terry Holzemer Suzanne Keehn 2581 Park Blvd. #Y211 4027 Orme Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Palo Alto, CA 94306 1 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Martin <ncmartin@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:PA Weekly Council Members,  I would like to urge you to reverse the City's decision not to place notifications of various City meetings in the PA  Weekly.  This certainly appears to be more of a move away from transparency than it does a money saving  option....$20,000 is close to a rounding error for the City.  Please do all that you can to keep and make t he City's  business even more transparent to the residents.  Respectfully submitted,  Nancy C Martin  777 San Antonio Rd. 132  Palo Alto, CA 94303  2 Carnahan, David From:James Hamilton <jaythamilton@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:City advertising switch Dear City Council Members,           I hope that you will reconsider the decision to switch advertising from the Palo Alto Weekly to the Daily Post.  Though the decision might save the city about $20,000 per year, this ignores the likely net benefits from publishing in  one outlet versus another. Consider that:  * The Palo Alto Weekly distributes 20,000+ copies in the city, including 14,000 directly to homes (including mine). The  Daily Post distributes 6,000 copies through news boxes. If you believe that transparency and open government and  citizen participation relate to the circulation of information, then you would need to consider that you're likely reaching  70% fewer people in order to save $20,000.  * Publishing city agendas and notices is the right thing to do because of intrinsic values (i.e., openness) and instrumental  values (i.e., the information helps change decisions about participation and policy). Over the course of the last several  years there are clear examples of how the lack of information about the operation of our local government led to  detrimental outcomes. This means that getting the information to circulate broadly should be a goal for the city council. * Local public affairs reporting helps hold the city council accountable. I read the Weekly each week, but only  sporadically see the Daily Post (e.g., when I'm at Izzy's Bagels reading). My impression is that the Weekly devotes more  resources than the Daily Post to original reporting about Palo Alto. The support for this local news is a positive byproduct  of the bundling of news with advertising. Research shows that local public affairs reporting does have a positive impact  on communities:  https://localnewslab.org/2018/06/20/how‐we‐know‐journalism‐is‐good‐for‐democracy/          Thank you for considering this note, and I hope there is additional public debate at a council meeting about the  city's advertising policy.   Sincerely,  James T Hamilton    3 Carnahan, David From:Carol Blitzer <cblitzer@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Penny wise, pound foolish Council members:  You may think you are saving $20,000 a year by posting agendas and city notices in the Daily Post rather than the Palo  Alto Weekly, but you are simply paying less and getting far less.  The Weekly reaches more Palo Alto homes (and readers).   If you want to encourage civic engagement, you must inform the public of upcoming meetings.  Respectfully,  Carol Blitzer    Sent from my iPhone  4 Carnahan, David From:Eileen Brooks <eibrooks@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 11:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rescind Decision to Drop Weekly Ads Please seriously consider reinstating Council, etc. ads in the Weekly.  It is the only way that I can learn what's going on in local government.  The City Clerk's decision to go with The Post is laughable.  6000 circ. vs. The Weekly's 30,000?  There is some cost for an informed citizenry.  Thanks ‐  Eileen Brooks   5 Carnahan, David From:Carol Weber <cweber1151@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:PA Weekly The Palo Alto weekly is a vital source of information on all items relevant to Palo Alto.      For less mobile seniors, the home delivery feature is vital!     Please do not take away your financial support of this important form of print media!    Raise the $20,000 you would otherwise save by some other means; for example, perhaps by issuing MANY more  speeding tickets along Embarcadero & Middlefield.    Support a well‐informed (and safe) environment.    Thanks for listening!    Carol L Weber  (650) 248‐0095   cweber1151@gmail.com        6 Carnahan, David From:abha kumar <abhakumarmd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 8:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:I read Palo Alto weekly to keep informed     Sent from my iPhone  7 Carnahan, David From:Romola Georgia <rgeorgia@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 7:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Change of Newspaper Advertising Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I am horrified that the City Clerk has decided to shift City notices from the Palo Alto Weekly to the Post.    The Weekly is a paper that is dedicated to serving our community with well‐researched articles and important  information for Palo Alto residents. It has the benefit of coming directly to our homes.    The Post, on the other hand, focus on crime and negative stories from the entire globe. It is not delivered to homes and  is not a healthy read.    Please reconsider this terrible decision.    Thank you,  Romola Georgia  Tippawingo St.  Palo Alto  8 Carnahan, David From:Luce, Gwen <GLuce@cbnorcal.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 4:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please reconsider your decision to only post in the Post vs. PAW!   Gwen Luce, Realtor® DRE License #00879652 Direct Line: 650.566.5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com Many citizens who are elderly and infirm cannot walk to pick up a newspaper - they gratefully receive the Palo Alto Weekly at home on Friday! Gwen Luce       . Gwen Luce 650-566-5343 gluce@cbnorcal.com www.gwenluce.com Powered by e-Letterhead     *Wire Fraud is Real*.  Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to  confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a  real estate contract via written or verbal communication.  9 Carnahan, David From:John Sanchez <jesj98@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 5:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cancellation of PA city meeting notices and agendas Dear Council: PLEASE DO NOT cancel the weekly posting of PA City business (meetings, agenda) in the Palo Alto Weekly. The Weekly (and it's online component) serve as a vital independent news source for Palo Alto residents. It should continue to post this City business and contract the PA Weekly to publish it. The WEEKLY (and the online edition) is the MAIN source of City business for Palo Alto residents. Please DO NOT discontinue this service to your community. John Sanchez PA resident (34 years) who attempts to keep elected officials accountable for their actions. 10 Carnahan, David From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 4:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Change of publication for notices So sorry that to save $20K per year, the city staff has decided to change publications for city notices. Instead of using the Palo Alto Weekly, with a circulation of 20,600 in Palo Alto, including 14,000 copies directly to residents, including myself, the city has decided to use the Daily Post, with a circulation of 6,000, all to boxes. I will not see the notices unless I am out and about and pick up a newspaper on the particular day the notices are published. This is pound-wise and penny-foolish. Given the city's willingness to spend millions to upgrade city offices (although some upgrades have been postponed), and while there is still no plan to build a new animal shelter and the construction of the new police headquarters is still only a vague plan with no schedule, saving a small amount that will reduce coverage of council and other activities seems like a poor decision. Please reverse that decision. Kathleen Goldfein Resident of Palo Alto since 1989 11 Carnahan, David From:priya chandrasekar <priya_chandrasekar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 4:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:publishing agenda and meetings in the palo alto weekly dear council members , The weekly news is a great paper that we not only love to browse but also get all our info from. We get it delivered and it is such a wonderful way to keep us all connected. Please not take away there source of income and deprive us of the info. thanks priya crescent park , Palo Alto 12 Carnahan, David From:Lakshmi Rao <reachlakshmi001@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto weekly Hello City Council,    I’m writing to you to please refrain from discontinuing publishing your meeting notices in the PA Weekly. This  newspaper is a bedrock of our news uptake as a community, and I want to assure you that the money spent in  disseminating content here is worth it.     If there are indeed savings to be had by distributing them the Post, why not consider it an add on, given its (much) lower  distribution. Nothing against newcomers, but perhaps you can distribute via both?    Sincerely,  Lakshmi Rao    The Palo Alto Comdominiums  1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 7:33 PM To:Lait, Jonathan Cc:Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; Flaherty, Michelle; Morse, Rosemary; Hoyt, George; Timothy Kassouni; Council, City Subject:Minor ARB Hearing Attachments:scanarbdates.pdf Mr. Lait,    Attached are sample emails requesting ARB Hearing dates for 3 minor items (a) landscape which is limited to  plant pots and container plants, (b) materials board, and (c) west wall look.  Review of these items is required  in the Approval No 2017‐2 Record of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Land Use Action for 425 and 429  University Avenue; the project was approved by Council on February 6, 2017.    For over a year my architects and/or I have repeatedly requested such Minor Level ARB Hearing via phone and  emails.  A sample email dated February 1, 2018, is attached.  Also attached is a response from Jodie Gerhardt  stating that she would only discuss ARB hearing dates "after a contractor is in place".  This stipulation makes  no common or legal sense.    We had no cooperation from Planning in scheduling the ARB hearing.  A Minor Level ARB hearing was finally  scheduled on August 16, 2018, about 18 months after the project was approved by Council.  This enormous  delay in scheduling the ARB is causing severe economic hardships for the project for which Planning is mostly  responsible.      The ARB hearing of August 16, 2018, was continued to Sept 6, 2018, further delaying the project.    Please set up a meeting before our Sept 6 ARB hearing to dissect recent changes to city codes specifically as  they relate to qualifying appellants and time requirements for such appeals.  I believe these changes are  recent as you mentioned that there were enacted after my own appeal of the Nobu Restaurant at 620  Emerson Street just 3 months ago and that under the new codes I would not be entitled to the Nobu appeal;  rather that such appeals are now limited to adjacent property owners only.  Your email of today is even more  confusing as you repeated the above changes to the codes just last Monday August 20, 2018 when you met  with Architect Ko, Rosemary Morse, and other members of my team.    Additionally, I would like to explore the possibility of qualifying the Minor Level ARB items as "Deferred" items,  a common practice by other departments involved in the Building Permitting process.    Sincerely,    Elizabeth Wong    650 814 3051      ; M Gmail Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> ARB Hearing for Approval No 2017-2 1 message -------- Laura Roberts <laura@koarch.com> Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:31 AM To: "Gerhardt, Jodie" <Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>, "APetersen@m-group.us" <APetersen@m- group.us> Cc: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>, Peter Ko <design@koarch.com> Good morning Jodie and_Adam, I would like to schedule an ARB hearing for Approval No 2017-2, Record of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Land Use Action for 425 and 429 University Ave. to fulfill the Condition of Approval #3. Such Condition requires an ARB hearing for the following three items: (a) A decorative wall design treatment to the exterior walls adjacent to the Southern property line. (b) Landscape details and plans. (c) Exterior building materials, colors and details. Please let me know how soon you can accommodate us. Since it is only 3 items, is it possible to add this hearing to an existing ARB schedule? Thank you for considering my request. Laura C. Roberts, AIA Associate Architect Ko Architects, Inc. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 M Gmail Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> RE: ARB Hearing for Approval No 2017-2 -429 University 1 message Gerhardt, Jodie <Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org> Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11 :29 AM To: Laura Roberts <laura@koarch.com>, "APetersen@m-group.us" <APetersen@m-group.us> Cc: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>, Peter Ko <design@koarch.com> Laura, 7 . . ... ~· . {)>I\~ Please turn in revised pl~n~. After a conlct is in place, Adam will review those and route to other departments as necessary, then we can discuss hearing dates. Jodie Gerhardt, AICP I Manager of Current Planning I P&CE Department .~. ' , 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 PALO ALT 0 T: 650.329.2575 IE: jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloatto.org From: Laura Roberts [mailto:laura@koarch.com] Sent: Thursday, February 01 ifiB 9:3~ Alm~ To: Gerhardt, Jdal' APM!f m-group.us' Cc: 'Elizabeth Wong'; Peter Ko Subject: ARB Hearing for Approval No 2017-2 Good morning Jodie and Adam, I would like to schedule an ARB hearing for Approval No 2017-2, Record of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Land Use Action for 425 and 429 University Ave. to fulfill the Condition of Approval #3. Such Condition requires an ARB hearing for the following three items: (a) A decorative wall design treatment to the exterior walls adjacent to the Southern property line. M Gmait 429 University mixed use -minor ARB review 1 message Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Tracy Wang <tracy@koarch.com> Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:14 PM To: "apetersen@m-group.us" <apetersen@rn-group.us> Cc: Peter Ko <design@koarch.com>, Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>, Laura Roberts <laura@koarch.com> Hi Adam, We delivered the color and material board, 9 sets of landscape report and 9 sets of west wall design report for 429 University Ave mixed use project to planning department this afternoon. I also attached the digital files here for your use. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you! Tracy Wang Project Architect Ko Architects, Inc. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-853-1908 tracy@koarch.com ABOUT THIS E-MAIL: The information transmitted may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material that is only for the person or entity to which It is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material immediately. 3 attachments t) West Wall Report 03202018.pdf . 3413K 429 University -Color board.jpg 566K tj 429 university landscape report -03.20.18.pdf M Gmail Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Minor ARB review of materials board, landscape, appearance of western wall. 1 message Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:08 AM To: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Lait, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Gerhardt, Jodie" <jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org>, Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us> Cc: "Morse, Rosemary" <rosemary.morse@cityofpaloalto.org>, Peter Ko <design@koarch.com>, Tracy Wang <tracy@koarch.com>, Laura Roberts <laura@koarch.com>, Jaime Wong <jandewong@gmail.com>, Andrew Wong <a.jaime.wong@gmail.com> Good morning Hillary, Jon, Jodie, Adam, Ko Architects has repeatedly requested the minor ARB Hearing for review of the subject issues required in the Approval for 429 University. We have emails of such requests from January/February 2018. Please look into this request as time is of the essence. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong 1 Carnahan, David From:Cassie Tolhurst <cassie@verizon-business.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:News Alert: Laguna Niguel named #33 best “small city” for small businesses Hi City Council,     Verizon Business just released its Best Small Cities for Small Businesses report for 2018. Laguna Niguel made the list as  the #33 ranked city across the U.S. for small businesses.     That's puts Laguna Niguel in the top 16.6% across the nation. Congratulations!      Here is a link to the full report: https://go.verizon.com/resources/the‐best‐small‐cities‐to‐start‐a‐small‐business/   We encourage you to share your city’s achievement with your team, co‐workers, city residents, and local businesses.     We at Verizon Business thank you for creating an environment where small businesses can thrive. Your city is helping to  lead the way for the future of entrepreneurs and small businesses.     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐     Here are some details from this report:     WHAT: Verizon Business announced the release of the “Best Small Cities for Small Businesses” report. We’ve all heard  the phrase, “small businesses are the backbone of the US economy” ‐ and for good reason ‐ small businesses make up  99.7% of US employer firms. But what about the cities they start in? Verizon analysts dug deep into six factors relevant  to small business owners to determine the top cities in our report.     WHERE: https://go.verizon.com/resources/the‐best‐small‐cities‐to‐start‐a‐small‐business/   2   WHEN: August 27th, 2018.     HOW: Verizon gathered data from small cities (as defined by the US Census) across the country. The elements we pulled  indicate the financial climate of each city and an overview of its demographics. We based our ranking off of six metrics:  education level of the local workforce, in‐city commute times, income per capita, broadband access, availability of SBA  loans, and overall tax friendliness.     WHO: Verizon Business. You may know Verizon only as the network that powers your cellular devices. But we’re also  committed to helping businesses of all sizes change the world.       CITATIONS: Feel free to use any of our images and data included in our report. Please link to the complete study and  attribute Verizon Business so your readers can view our work in its entirety.     Thanks for all that you do, please reach out with any questions!    Cassie Tolhurst  Mobile : (385) 449‐0743  Email : Cassie@Verizon‐Business.com    This electronic message and any attachments hereto contain information which may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. The  information is intended to be for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of the message or any  attachments hereto is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us immediately, and permanently delete the original  message and attachments.   Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictu res. To help protect your priv acy , O utlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the In ternet.   1 Carnahan, David From:Herman/Marina van Blommestein <vbconst@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 4:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:NO to Just Cause and Relocation Payments Dear City Council, As a San Mateo County Resident, and having lived in San Francisco and dealt with rent control issues I personally know they do not work. Please vote NO on any type of rent control such as Just Cause and Relocation Payments. The burden of housing is a community issue to resolve and landlords should not have to bear the cost for something we need to resolve as a community. Thank you Marina van Blommestein City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 5:25 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <Northern.California@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, August 23, 2018 2:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Northern California Regional Update- July 2018 To view this email as a web page, go here. Can't see the images? View As Webpage Northern California Regional Update The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) continues its commitment to conduct public outreach. Here are a few updates this month. San Francisco to San Jose San Jose to Merced Statewide Update City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 5:25 PM 2 Under new leadership by CEO Brian Kelly (former California Secretary of Transportation), the California High- Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is charting a new course for how it is managing and delivering the nation’s first high-speed rail system. Since joining the Authority in February 2018, CEO Kelly has been working to instill a more disciplined approach to program delivery through a three-step process:  Step 1: The adoption of the 2018 Business Plan laid out the vision and a newimplementation strategy while clearly spelling out and acknowledging the challenges facing the Authority  Step 2: The baseline, adopted by the Board of Directors in June 2018, aligns the scope, schedule and budget to deliver the priorities set forth in the 2018 business plan. In short, it represents the “what,” the “when” and the “cost.”  Step 3: The program management plan – which staff will bring to the Authority’s Board of Directors at their August 16 meeting in Sacramento – will lay out how we will organize and manage the team to ensure that the right resources are in the right place and that we have the governance structures set up to manage the program. The adoption of the baseline set targets for completion of the environmental documents for the San Francisco to San Jose and San Jose to Merced sections. From those targets, the Authority has developed its schedules for interim milestones in the development of those environmental documents. The key milestones in that process include the following: Milestone San Francisco to San Jose Section San Jose to Merced Section Preferred Alternative for Board Adoption December 2019 September 2019 Draft EIR/EIS March 2020 December 2019 Final EIR/EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) March 2021 November 2020 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 5:25 PM 3 Authority Introduces New Leadership in Northern California The Authority also recently announced changes to Northern California Regional leadership as it transitions to a new organizational structure, shifting the focus to project delivery within each of the project’s three regions. This spring, Boris Lipkin was appointed Acting Northern California Regional Director, replacing previous Northern California Regional Director Ben Tripousis. Lipkin previously served in several roles with the high-speed rail program since 2011. Most recently, he was appointed Deputy Director of Strategic Planning by Governor Brown, where he led the Strategic Initiatives Office. In that role, Lipkin worked to develop the Authority’s business plans, led efforts to gain access to more than $3 billion in state bond funds and helped negotiate key agreements with Caltrain and other partners. As Acting Northern California Regional Director, Lipkin plays a pivotal role in leading the delivery of the Silicon Valley to Central Valley line in the Northern California region as envisioned in the 2018 Business Plan. He will focus on engaging regional stakeholders on developing the program and bringing the benefits of improved transportation and mobility to Northern California. Rebecca Kohlstrand was appointed Interim Northern California Director of Projects, where she will work to advance the planning and implementation of high-speed rail from San Francisco to the Central Valley Wye. She will be leading the team charged with delivering the environmental review and analysis of the high-speed rail program in Northern California. Prior to advancing to her new role, Kohlstrand served as the Northern California Environmental Manager for the high-speed rail program and has more than 40 years of experience in transportation planning. Previously, Kohlstrand worked on several City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 5:25 PM 4 large infrastructure and transportation projects throughout Northern California and is intimately familiar with the region’s transportation needs. Guy Preston has assumed the role of Project Contract Administrator (PCA) for Northern California. The PCA acts as the focal point for the Authority’s management of project delivery contracts within each region, providing oversight of regional project resources, the scope, schedule, and budget for contracts in each region, as well as leadership and guidance to ensure contracts are aligned with overall program goals and objectives. Together, Lipkin, Kohlstrand, and Preston bring new leadership in the efforts to advance the delivery of high-speed rail in Northern California. They are working to ensure that the program brings benefits to the region by developing improved mobility options within the region and between Northern California and the rest of the state. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Update Caltrain electrification is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization (CalMod) Program and will electrify the corridor from San Francisco’s 4th and King Caltrain Station to the Tamien Caltrain Station. Electrification improvements include converting diesel-hauled trains to Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains and increasing service to six trains per peak hour per direction while substantially reducing emissions compared to today’s service. The Authority continues to be a champion and partner for the PCEP and has committed more than $700 million of Proposition 1A and other funds to complete the funding package for this project. Current construction activities include utility relocation, horizontal beam and OCS pole installation, and tree trimming. A preview of the some of these activities can be found at https://youtu.be/_CRuxEr-7GA. For more information on the overall CalMod Program and community construction updates and meetings, please visit the CalMod Program website at calmod.org. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 5:25 PM 5 MTC Awarded Grant The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in May was awarded the Caltrans Strategic Partnership Planning Grant for the Diridon Integrated Station Concept Plan (DISC). MTC, as the eligible recipient for this grant program, will receive $500,000. The local match of $214,780 will be provided by a four-agency partnership made up of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, City of San Jose, Peninsula Joint Powers Board and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. As the only place in the Bay Area where high-speed rail, commuter rail, and BART will intersect in the same building, Diridon Station is projected to become California’s busiest transit hub by 2040. Along with the increase in transportation service at Diridon Station and with the interest of Google to develop in the Station Area, it was recognized that additional planning was necessary to create a visionary urban station for all users that incorporates development/land use, transportation and the community at the site. To meet these goals, the Partnership has agreed to cooperatively manage the DISC planning effort. The DISC is an 18-month planning process that will include urban design, engineering, and governance/financing efforts leading to a Concept Plan for the Diridon Station Area. This effort will be closely coordinated and will build on the Authority’s environmental clearance for the elements that will be necessary just for high-speed rail at the station. The MTC-funded Diridon Station Area Plan (DSAP) was adopted by San José’s City Council in 2014. The DSAP was an important land-use planning effort that laid the groundwork for much of the development activity occurring in the station area today. Since the completion of the DSAP, it was recognized that additional planning work was needed to build upon the framework of the DSAP.  Significantly more development within the station area is now likely, and this development is occurring more than a decade earlier than the DSAP anticipated City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 5:25 PM 6 While the DSAP put forward a general land use concept for the station area, it offered little detail on the size, shape or configuration of the station. This is in large part because design and environmental work relating to the new rail alignments that connect at Diridon Station – BART and high-speed rail – was not as far along when the DSAP was being created as it is currently.eo. If you are interested in inviting us to your community meeting to receive a project update, our team would be happy to coordinate with you. Feel free to contact us here: Via Email: san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.gov san.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov Via Phone: San Francisco to San Jose Project Section: (800) 435-8670 San Jose to Merced Project Section: (800) 455-8166 Via Mail: Northern California Regional Office California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 Sincerely, Boris Lipkin Northern California Regional Director SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 northern.california@hsr.ca.gov (408) 277-1083 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe 1 Carnahan, David From:Bob Stillerman <bobstiller@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:40 AM To:ParkRec Commission; Howard, Adam Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Thank you for Court Policy Update I would like to provide my input into the pickleball at Mitchell question.    I am a die‐hard tennis player (sometimes 5 times/week), Palo Alto resident, and recent new member to the Silicon  Valley (Palo Alto) Pickleball Club.  I have participated in a number of pickleball events and note that on the 3 courts  normally available to tennis players (5‐7) where a maximum of 12 players can enjoy their sport, up to 44 people can play  on the same surface with pickleball configurations.     I am delighted, and impressed, by the number of enthusiastic pickleball players who show up on a regular basis. The  environment is friendly, open, readily available to all (no 1 ¼ hour wait between matches, more likely 10 minute waits),  and a lot of fun.    Thanks to Adam for your support and recognition of the value of PB to the community.  I fully support the SVPB initiative  put forth for permanent facilities.    Thank you.    Bob Stillerman T: +1-650-326-4800 C: +1-209-483-4800   From: 'mwilliams' via SVPC Members [mailto:svpc-members@googlegroups.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 8:53 AM To: ParkRec Commission; Adam Howard Cc: City Council Subject: Thank you for Court Policy Update Chair McDougall, Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Adam Howard, Thank you for voting in favor of recommending to the Palo Alto City Council to approve updating the Court Use Policy to include Pickleball. Thank you, Adam, for the enormous amount of time that you spent working on updating the policy. I’d like to make some important points that may not have been heard at the meeting. Pickleball is Noisy: Because of the noise factor of pickleball, we need a facility far enough away from residences so as not to disturb their peace. No Other Choice: Mitchell Park is the only park in Palo Alto that meets the above criterion. Tennis players are fortunate because they have a choice of playing on any of the other 40 tennis courts in Palo Alto, including the 4 newly resurfaced lighted courts at Mitchell. Pickleballers have no other choice. 2 Portable Nets: Every time we play, we have to put up, and remove, as many as 11 portable nets which we have stored in a locker outside the courts. These nets weigh 25 lbs. Classes: Since April, 2017 I, personally, in a volunteer capacity, have taught 54 City Pickleball Classes on courts 5, 6 and 7 and have had to put up the portable nets for every one of them. Currently I am teaching 2 classes a week for 16 weeks and proposing to teach a Youth class next season. Please act on the following: Save Money: Courts 5, 6, and 7, are due to be resurfaced soon. It makes perfect economic sense to install 4 permanent pickleball nets on court 5 at the same time this work is done. Palo Alto Pickleball Club: Going forward, please refer to our club as the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. We have over 360 members and 40% are Palo Alto residents. Our base is at Mitchell Park so the board felt that changing our name from the Silicon Valley Pickleball Club more accurately reflect our demographics. Sincerely, Monica Monica Williams USAPA Ambassador Pal Alto Pickleball Club SVPC President (650)254-1041 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SVPC Members" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to svpc- members+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to svpc-members@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/svpc- members/696765678.316501.1535557998087%40mail.yahoo.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 3 Carnahan, David From:Maryann McLaughlin <maryannmclaughlin10@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 10:25 AM To:mwilliams; Howard, Adam; Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Fwd: Thank you for Court Policy Update   Hi All,  Apologies for the typo below. I meant to say I do not live in Palo Alto. I do live in San Carlos ‐ where sadly, we do not  have any regular options other than indoor play on Wednesdays in the middle of the day.     I commend the City of Palo Alto for being receptive and recognizing the growth and positive impact of the sport on the  community.    Thanks,  Maryann            ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Maryann McLaughlin <maryannmclaughlin10@gmail.com>  Date: Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:07 PM  Subject: Re: Thank you for Court Policy Update  To: mwilliams <moniwilliams@yahoo.com>  Cc: Adam Howard <adam.howard@cityofpaloalto.org>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, ParkRec  Commission <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>    Hello,  I wanted to echo my gratitude and support. I also wanted to highlight something Monica might not have mentioned as it  related to the size of our club and positive economic impact.    I want to be direct and let you know that I live on the Peninsula and not in San Carlos. However, after I play at Mitchell, I  also stay in Palo Alto and shop. Many of us grab lunch or coffee nearby after playing. I often also pick up groceries at  Grocery Outlet or Piazza’s and run other errands at local PA shops. I point this out as I know there has been some  discussion that some club members are not PA residents, but I am certain we collectively spend tens of thousands of  dollars each year in Palo Alto as a direct result of our playing Pickleball in the city.    We appreciate you consideration.    Thanks,  Maryann McLaughlin    On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:53 AM 'mwilliams' via SVPC Members <svpc‐members@googlegroups.com> wrote:  Chair McDougall, Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Adam Howard, 4 Thank you for voting in favor of recommending to the Palo Alto City Council to approve updating the Court Use Policy to include Pickleball. Thank you, Adam, for the enormous amount of time that you spent working on updating the policy. I’d like to make some important points that may not have been heard at the meeting. Pickleball is Noisy: Because of the noise factor of pickleball, we need a facility far enough away from residences so as not to disturb their peace. No Other Choice: Mitchell Park is the only park in Palo Alto that meets the above criterion. Tennis players are fortunate because they have a choice of playing on any of the other 40 tennis courts in Palo Alto, including the 4 newly resurfaced lighted courts at Mitchell. Pickleballers have no other choice. Portable Nets: Every time we play, we have to put up, and remove, as many as 11 portable nets which we have stored in a locker outside the courts. These nets weigh 25 lbs. Classes: Since April, 2017 I, personally, in a volunteer capacity, have taught 54 City Pickleball Classes on courts 5, 6 and 7 and have had to put up the portable nets for every one of them. Currently I am teaching 2 classes a week for 16 weeks and proposing to teach a Youth class next season. Please act on the following: Save Money: Courts 5, 6, and 7, are due to be resurfaced soon. It makes perfect economic sense to install 4 permanent pickleball nets on court 5 at the same time this work is done. Palo Alto Pickleball Club: Going forward, please refer to our club as the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. We have over 360 members and 40% are Palo Alto residents. Our base is at Mitchell Park so the board felt that changing our name from the Silicon Valley Pickleball Club more accurately reflect our demographics. Sincerely, Monica Monica Williams USAPA Ambassador Pal Alto Pickleball Club SVPC President (650)254-1041 ‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SVPC Members" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to svpc‐ members+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To post to this group, send email to svpc‐members@googlegroups.com.  5 To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/svpc‐ members/696765678.316501.1535557998087%40mail.yahoo.com.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  6 Carnahan, David From:linda leaver <lindajleaver@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:51 AM To:ParkRec Commission; Howard, Adam Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Palo Alto Pickleball Club Dear Adam Howard and the Palo Alto Recreation Commission:    Thank you for decisively moving towards installing dedicated courts at Mitchell Park and accommodating the quickly  growing membership of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club    Sincerely,    _|Çwt _xtäxÜ  Brian Boitano Enterprises 10545 West Loyola Los Altos, CA 94024 650 948 2478   http://www.twitter.com/brianboitano/ http://www.brianboitano.com/ http://www.facebook.com/brianboitano/     7 Carnahan, David From:connors@sbcglobal.net Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:45 AM To:Howard, Adam; ParkRec Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Appreciation and Thanks Good morning Adam,    Wanted to take a moment to say we appreciate you and the Parks and Recreation’s support of Pickleball in Palo Alto. It  is amazing how this sport brings people in a community together for a great social and good exercise sport experience  that is very habit forming. Look forward to Palo Alto joining the ever growing list of cities that have dedicated Pickleball  courts in one of their Parks.     With Great Thanks,    John  8 Carnahan, David From:Martha Elderon <melderon@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:25 AM To:Howard, Adam; Council, City Subject:Permanent and reservable PICKLEBALL COURTS Dear Mr. Howard and Palo Alto City Council members,    I am one of the many pickleball players who use Mitchell Park courts several times weekly to enjoy this great sport. As a  senior citizen, it improves my health and well‐being enormously.    I urge you to give us parity with the tennis players by allowing advance reservations of pickleball courts. As Monica  Williams pointed out, tennis players have access to many local courts, whereas delineated pickleball courts are not as  easy to find.    I also request that Mitchell Park offer some permanent pickleball courts so we won't have to set up and take down our  nets each time we play.    Thanks for your consideration!    ~ Martha Elderon (Palo Alto Unified School District employee)  1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 12:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:12:11 pm   Hello Council,    I just want to thank you all for working so hard, so late.    Geri McGilvray     Everyday Safety and WALKABILITY, MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, midtown, Palo Alto      Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 3:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:President Hotel Dear City Council, Many of us totally support the residents of the President Hotel, for many reasons. First being that we want/need these people in Palo Alto, they are a very diverse community which is so valuable. Second, we keep talking about BMR units, but have not yet found a way to make sure we build such housing. We saved Beuna Vista, thank goodness, but now may loose this valuable source of housing. Another BIG problem, is that the new hotel will be REQUIRED to provide 150 parking spaces, the President at present has 7, and no way to include more. So what happens, the neighborhoods have to now be a parking lot for the new Hotel? W have to have renter protection for all these mydraid of reasons, an ordinance is needed to extend the time when they need to leave , and to certainly give them more than $3000. Better yet find a way for them to stay with the same rent. Below is a quote from Palo Alto Matters, which says it all. Please act in such a way that protects the residents and our City from more parking mess. "It’s unclear that AJ Capital understood all the legal problems its hotel conversion faces. Until it proposes a plan that conforms with city laws, regulations such as the those adopted by Santa Rosa and suggested by the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley could forestall the threatened evictions and protect against what could be a long term empty building in the heart of downtown. If councilmembers wish to protect the Hotel President tenants and others, they will need to move quickly and expand eviction guidelines beyond what’s in the proposed ordinances for Monday night." Thank you for taking positive action for us all. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 1 Carnahan, David From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Public Transportation Needs Your Influence I stopped in at CC last night to comment during Public Communications but withdrew my card upon realizing that this  issue could wait while others on the agenda could not. So I am writing instead.    Please use your influence to improve the reliability of the public transportation that we do have.  Yesterday I used the  shuttle to get to work and then to downtown.  After work I encountered a woman I often see on the shuttle.  She was a  little annoyed that the shuttle wasn’t running on schedule.  This woman lives in Gilroy and commutes to Palo Alto by  train.  It is critical that she make the 5:43 train south because if she does not she must wait in San Jose for NINETY  minutes.  Per her, the Embarcadero shuttle did not run on schedule last Friday and it was off schedule again yesterday.     Since I live here, if I miss a shuttle I am inconvenienced but not at the level that train riders are inconvenienced. Nothing  will drive people into their cars faster than public transportation that is not reliable.  If you are serious about wanting  people to use public transportation, it must work.  Said differently, it should be more surprising when a shuttle is late  than when a shuttle is on time.  No one should ever be punished with a NINETY minute wait at a train station simply b/c  a shuttle is off‐schedule.    Help!    Annette Ross  Amherst Street    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 10:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, August 23, 2018 10:42 AM To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City Cc:Safe Routes Subject:Rail Questions Hi Josh, I am unable to attend this week’s Community Meeting re: Rail, but here are some questions I’d ask if I could to understand the pros and cons of the remaining options. Overall: 1). It is disappointing that the consultant was not prepared last week to discuss implications of creeks for each option. I think this will be a key factor in decision-making, and I don’t see how any of remaining options can be eliminated without knowing this. 2). I would like to see city join with citizens to lobby Caltrain to expedite their review and possible revision of standards for tunnel/trench height. This could be a solution providing both safety and enormous cost savings for the city—especially given the pressure we are starting to see build on Nextdoor for a trench or tunnel option. Safety: I view a 4’ rise at the Charleston and East Meadow crossings as a probable safety hazard because the rise will create a sightline obstruction for WB drivers climbing the rise. They will pick up speed as they crest the top and descend. Descent will land just at the Park Boulevard crossings, creating risk for some very bad collisions at those intersections. If a 4’ rise is allowed, this risk will need mitigation that has not yet been discussed. MCL-rail over road hybrid w/ Loma Verde bike/ped connection  What would the Loma Verde bike/ped connection look like? Where is the descriptive narrative for this facility?  It looks like the MCL option would maintain all existing Alma connections/turning movements at Charleston and Meadow crossings for all modes (bike/auto/ped). Specifically, how would this be accomplished?  Specifically, how would this affect driveways/properties abutting the lowered sections of road on Alma, Charleston and Meadow and any affected cross streets? How many properties would be affected? Exactly which properties would be affected? Exactly how would they be affected?  How would abutting backyards/homes with glass walls be protected from privacy intrusion, lights, noise of elevated trains? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 10:56 AM 2  Specifically, how will placement of temporary track affect Alma operations during construction? How might diversion of traffic from Alma affect operations of other streets?  Specifically, how tall will the total structure (including electrification accoutrement) be?  How will bike/ped connections be maintained throughout construction? How will road grade changes affect bikability of bike routes on Park, Meadow and Charleston? Will Park Ave. be usable as a crosstown bike route through the construction period? What accommodations for bikes/peds will be made on East Meadow and Charleston through construction? MCR-road over rail hybrid w/ Loma Verde bike/ped connection  What would the Loma Verde bike/ped connection look like? Where is the descriptive narrative for this facility?  How would abutting yards/homes be protected from privacy intrusion, lights, noise of elevated road?  What would the grade of the road be? How would this affect bicyclists?  Would the MCR option maintain all existing Alma connections/turning movements at Charleston and Meadow crossings for all modes (bike/auto/ped)? Specifically, how would this be accomplished?  Specifically, how will placement of temporary track affect Alma operations? How might diversion of traffic from Alma affect operations of other streets?  How will bike/ped connections be maintained throughout construction? How will road grade changes affect bikability of bike routes on Park, Meadow and Charleston? Will Park Ave. be usable as a crosstown bike route through the construction period? What accommodations for bikes/peds will be made on East Meadow and Charleston through construction?  Specifically, how will abutting properties be impacted? Which properties?  See above overall comment on this option. MCT-road over trench or tunnel This option should remain so that staff will study the difference between fully trenched/tunneled vs. hybrid which requires a rise in the road which may create a safety problem. Understanding the Churchill Closure Decision  When will we see a study to help us understand the traffic impacts of Council’s decision to close the Churchill crossing? This should inform all other grade sep decisions.  Could the city implement a temporary closure of Churchill for a couple of months to study these impacts? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 10:56 AM 3 Again, an early decision on trench/tunnel height standards would be very helpful to this decision-making process. It could provide better solutions for the community at lower cost. Will the city be lobbying Caltrain for this? If so, please tell citizens the best way we can support the city’s effort. Sorry for this rushed message, but it’s a busy week and I wanted to share these thoughts with you. Penny 1 Carnahan, David From:Carl Page <carlpage@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:05 AM To:Friend, Gil Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: dark albedo pavements... Attachments:image.png Of course.  You can mix in pigments at the mixing station. Main concern seems to be black footprints getting on it as  workers go about their business with normal level of care.   That's acceptable compared to the economic and health  impact.  Hotter pavement also release more VOC pollutants that may cause cancer on sunny days, so these cooler  pavements measurably improve air quality.     The stripes that we laid down hot are obviously pigmented asphalt.  You can't do the whole street that way, but it shows  the extreme is possible.    https://www.dailynews.com/2017/05/20/cool‐pavement‐to‐cut‐urban‐street‐heat‐gets‐first‐california‐tryout‐in‐canoga‐ park/amp/     https://www.cnet.com/news/green‐asphalt‐layers‐cool‐surface‐on‐school‐lot/    http://www.graniterock.com/technical_reports/integral‐colored‐asphalt?category_id=90    Integral Colored Asphalt By Irv Howton The old adage “You can get your asphalt any color you like, as long at it is black,” no longer applies. There are at least two types of color systems that are on the market today to color Hot Mix Asphalt. One system uses a colored cementicious material that is applied to the mat surface and rolled. Often a pattern is rolled in as well. This system coats the surface of the asphalt pavement. The flexibility of this system is that many colors can be used and the patterns can make the mat appear to be stonework. The main disadvantage to this system is that the cost is high and the application requires a new skill set to be used on the job. The other coloring system has been around since the early 1990s. This system actually colors the material before it is placed and is uniform throughout the mix much like the integral color that is used in concrete. The main advantage to this system is that the whole top lift of the mat is colored using the same techniques that are already used in paving. The disadvantage is that the colors are limited to mainly reds and browns. Using the second system, the Hot Mix Asphalt is colored by incorporating the powdered additive into the batch plant pugmill during mixing. The amount of color that is added depends on the color that is requested. Lighter colors require more additive to do their job.    (arl    On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 6:24 AM Friend, Gil <Gil.Friend@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  2 Thanks Carl. I've shared this with the public works team, which asks " Is there something that has the attributes of  asphalt." Do you know?  Thanks,  Gil    Gil Philip Friend  Chief Sustainability Officer  City of Palo Alto  650/924‐6166    [crafted by thumbs]  From: Carl Page <carlpage@gmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:29:07 PM  To: Council, City; Friend, Gil  Subject: Fwd: dark albedo pavements...      I note Palo Alto is still using really dark pavement, and for no reason requiring us to use more air conditioners, and  irrigation water, to undo the damage the pavement is doing.  See attached.     Los Angeles is doing it as part of their Cool LA initiative.    Climate change means we need to concentrate more on air conditioning and water consumption, and less on  heating.     https://www.dailynews.com/2017/05/20/cool‐pavement‐to‐cut‐urban‐street‐heat‐gets‐first‐california‐tryout‐in‐ canoga‐park/     CANOGA PARK >> The new street seal gushed from a downpipe Saturday onto Jordan Avenue, then spread like paint to turn a half block of black into a sea of gray. The morning temperature of the black asphalt in the middle of a nearby intersection read 93 degrees. The new light gray surface on Jordan Avenue read a cool 70 — on what would turn out to be the first heat wave of the year. “It’s awesome. It’s very cool — both literally and figuratively,” exclaimed Councilman Bob Blumenfield, whose Los Angeles district includes Canoga Park, squinting into the laser handheld thermometer. “We are trying to control ‘the heat island effect’ ” — or hotter temperatures caused by urban sprawl. “The downside: we won’t be able to fry eggs on the streets.” ADVERTILOS ANGELES, WHICH HAD PIONEERED THE USE OF COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS TRASH TRUCKS AND OTHER VEHICLES, IS NOW AT THE FOREFRONT OF DEVELOPING A “COOL PAVEMENT” TO LOWER TEMPERATURES ALONG ITS THOUSANDS OF MILES OF BAKING ASPHALT STREETS. • MORE PHOTOS: See workers apply the cool pavement to the street 3 For the first time in the Golden State, it is testing a reflective street surface officials say could cut public road temperatures, cool the insides of nearby buildings, lessen air pollution and reduce the threat of deaths linked to increasingly hotter heat waves. Before afternoon temperatures could push 100, city street workers spread a thin gray coating of CoolSeal into the heart of one of its hottest neighborhoods. “The city’s going to get hotter because of climate change, particularly this neighborhood of the west San Fernando Valley,” said Greg Spotts, assistant director of the Bureau of Street Services, who doubles as its acting chief sustainability officer. “The phenomenon called the heat island effect means the city is hotter than the surrounding countryside.   (arl      \ Download from Dreamstime.com This w31ermorkod CO<l'IP image I• for preV1ow1nq purposos only. c a 1 Carnahan, David From:Anderson, Daren Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 6:50 AM To:Jill Asher; De Geus, Robert; Holman, Karen (external); O'Kane, Kristen; Council, City; peter.jensen@magicalbridge.org Subject:RE: Ducks under the bridge Good morning, Jill.    Thank you for the email about the ducks. I’ll contact the Santa Clara County Water District and the Palo Alto Animal  Services this morning to ask for their assistance with the ducks.    Thank you,    Daren    Daren Anderson   | Division Manager‐ Open Space, Parks & Golf   3201 East Bayshore Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303  P: 650‐496‐6950    Please think of the environment before printing this email ‐ Thank you    From: Jill Asher [mailto:jill@magicalbridge.org] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:48 AM To: Anderson, Daren; De Geus, Robert; Holman, Karen (external); O'Kane, Kristen; Council, City; peter.jensen@magicalbridge.org Subject: Fwd: Ducks under the bridge ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: suyun vaneveld <sv94306.lv@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 9:15 PM Subject: Ducks under the bridge To: <olenka@magicalbridge.org>, <jill@magicalbridge.org> Dear Olenka, Today I saw a family of ducklings struggling under the bridge. The water pump is pumping water out of the creek. Water in the creek is getting less and less. Workers damed the creek, one side is to totally dry, the other side still has a little bit of water. The little ducklings are unable to get over the dam. They are in danger. I hope the magic bridge community can do something for the ducklings. Attached some pictures of those desperate ducklings. Best regards, Suyun 2 Sent from my iPhone -- Jill Asher Magical Bridge Foundation NEW VIDEO: Why Magical Bridge Matters p: 650-520-8512 e: jill@magicalbridge.org Connect with Magical Bridge on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge • ' . , • • 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 6:56 PM To:stb_discussion@googlegroups.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; stephanie@dslextreme.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Council, City; Keene, James; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: Speak Out for Homeless at 9:30 AM TOMORROW August 28 at the Board of Supervisors Hi Folks,      The below letter was written by Sandy Perry of the Affordable Housing Network, CHAM Deliverance Ministry.     Regards,    Aram             Hi Everyone, Please join Affordable Housing Network, CHAM Deliverance Ministry, and other organizations and advocates at 9:30 AM tomorrow, Tuesday August 28, to speak out at the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to urge them to allow the use of the old City Hall Annex building to temporarily house the homeless. The County has over 7000 homeless people living in desperate conditions every single night. Many are forced to live in dangerous and unhealthy illegal encampments because there is literally nowhere else for them to go. The County has had years of task forces and discussions about temporary solutions, but has so far still made no significant progress in getting people off the streets. Silicon Valley’s ongoing shameful treatment of its homeless people is a national and international scandal. Please urge our County Supervisors to take advantage of this opportunity to house at least 150 of our fellow residents in the old City Hall while the new Civic Center is under construction. The proposal is simple, cost-effective, and can be implemented rapidly. Condemning the homeless to continue to live outside indefinitely, just to build another parking lot, is a serious moral misstep. Please join us to help the Board of Supervisors find its conscience and support this project! TIME: 9:30 AM TUESDAY, AUGUST 28 PLACE: COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS, 70 W. HEDDING STREET, SAN JOSE 1 Carnahan, David From:Ken Meislin <ken@meislin.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rent Control in Palo Alto Dear Palo Alto Councilmembers:    I am a property owner in the Bay Area.  I do not own in Palo Alto – but I took the time to write to the city council members,  because this issue is so important.    I own many rental properties, small and large, and I own in many other cities, including rent control locations such as San  Francisco, and Oakland.    I have never raised my rent more than 10% in one year …….  Ever!  If we have seniors or other  people that are struggling, we often try to go easier on the increases.  I consider myself an excellent landlord, and I always do  my part to be reasonable and responsible as an owner.  I also have maintained all my buildings to the absolute highest  standards.     Ultimately, rent control only hurts the housing stock, decreases housing affordability, and causes many owners to neglect  their properties.  Even though I do not neglect any of my properties, I can share with you the following.   Most buildings in San  Francisco and Oakland have below market rents, and therefore many of my neighbors have buildings that have fallen into  disrepair.  This is because regulated rents creates a disincentive for owners to spend money.  The classic example would be…..  Patch the roof……  and continue to patch it, again and again, even if it is past it’s useful life.  Don’t replace it.  Why ??? ‐  Because the rent can’t be raised to compensate the owner.  This is an issue, but it’s not even the worst problem.  More  significantly, when rent control is implemented, tenants get further and further behind, and this creates a “split market”.  As  time goes forward, old tenants pay less and less, relative to the real value, and then new tenants have substantially less and  less units to choose from.  This drives prices up.  Later in the cycle – it drives rents WAY up.   Look at the price of a unit in San  Francisco…..  Studios are now $2,500 to $3,000.  Two bedrooms are more than $4,000.  With rent control, over time, a lucky  few get a hall pass for subsidies, regardless of need, and everybody else is less able to afford housing.    As an example ‐ Check this out:    San Francisco’s median rent hits a ridiculous $4,225  http://flip.it/Wqm8y  This is not something we would want to see in Palo Alto.   Please……….  I speak from experience.  Rent control is bad.  Please  find other more reasonable solutions to our Bay Area housing crisis.  Incentivizing more building, and backing low income  properties, would be a good place to start…….    Thank you in advance.    Most respectfully,    Kenneth Meislin  Mill Valley, CA      WE HAVE MOVED!  PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW INFORMATION BELOW    ken@meislin.net  2   Kenneth Meislin ‐ Principal  Meislin Investments  P.O. Box 489  Mill Valley, CA 94942    Direct Line 415 273 2170  415 652‐0178 (cell)   Fax – 415 449 3655        1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 3:10 PM To:Mello, Joshuah Cc:Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James; Minor, Beth; Lunt, Kimberly; Brettle, Jessica; Carnahan, David; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; 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; 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:4th REQUEST | Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Spaces       Josh Mello  Chief Transportation Official  Palo Alto's Transportation Division    Mr. Mello:    In the future, it would make things much easier if you would take stewardship of your privileged position.     Again, you have complete City resources available to you, including a team of excellent City attorneys. YOU tell me if the destroyed Handicap Zones are on private or City property. Your office is only four (4) blocks from LG, walk over and take a look, then make a call to the Palo Alto County Assessor and afterwards query a City attorney for clarity. As a life- time Palo Altan, I know first-hand that property lines in my town are often creative and not intuitive. Looks like City property to me.     MAN UP.     I will no longer do your work for you. It is not up to me to bring the inappropriate use of the Streets of Palo Alto to other departments' attention. YOU must take responsibility.    It should not be this hard for a resident to get a straight answer from you to a simple and direct question. For the FOURTH time, I demand to know,    "Why has LG been allowed to obliterate FIVE Handicap Zones in front of their main entrance (656 Lytton Avenue) ?"       -Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016 & 2005          2 From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>  Date: Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 1:29 PM  Subject: CPRA Request | LG obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Zones  To: Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed <evlauing@yahoo.com>, 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>, <Kimberly.Lunt@cityofpaloalto.org>,  Brettle, Jessica <Jessica.Brettle@cityofpaloalto.org>, Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@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>,  <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>,  <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>, <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>        Molly Suzanne Stump, JD  City Attorney at City of Palo Alto    CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST (made this 25th day of August, 2018)    Dear Madame:    Pursuant to California Public Records Act Request (CPRA) (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.), re the recent destruction of FIVE downtown Handicap Zones by Lytton Gardens Senior Communities (LG) on Lytton Street, I request the release of copies of the following documents:    1. All emails and communications that Transportation Division Official Joshuah Mello received on the topic.    2. All city communications with LG on the issue.    3. All City-LG issues going back 36 months.    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 very much.   I appreciate your time and help.    Respectfully,  -Danielle Martell  dmPaloAlto@gmail.com          From: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 1:28 PM  Subject: Re: 3rd REQUEST | Palo Alto ‐ Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Spaces  To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>    Ms. Martell:    I have passed your concern on to the Planning and Community Environment Department. The Office of Transportation  does not regulate disabled parking outside of the public right‐of‐way.     In the future, it would make things much easier if you would respond when asked for additional clarifying information.     3 Regards,    JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP  Chief Transportation Official  OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION  City of Palo Alto  Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org  office: 650.329.2520   fax: 650.329.2154          From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>  Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 1:22 PM  To: Mello, Joshuah  Cc: Lauing, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Keene, James; Minor, Beth; Lunt, Kimberly; Brettle, Jessica; Carnahan, David;  Kleinberg, Judy; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; allison@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com; 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; 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: 3rd REQUEST: Palo Alto ‐ Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Spaces        Joshuah Mello  Chief Transportation Official  Palo Alto's Transportation Division    Mr. Mello:    As a quisi-public facility, what legal obligations bind LG to offer Handicap Zones?      With LG's recent destruction of FIVE Handicap Zones, Lytton Gardens --trusted with housing 600 elderly and compromised souls-- now provides ZERO Handicap Zones !     You have access to an entire department of fancy Palo Alto City attorneys. Your Palo Alto City salary with benefits totals about $250,000 annually. Taxpayers require direct answers to all questions put to you, and for you to be accountable at all times.    For the THIRD time, I demand to know,    "Why has LG been allowed to obliterate FIVE Handicap Zones in front of their main entrance (656 Lytton Avenue) ?"    -Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016 & 2005        From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018 Subject: Palo Alto - Lytton Gardens obliterates FIVE downtown Handicap Parking Spaces To: roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Cc: Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org, 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 4 <apierce@pierceshearer.com>, Debra@firstpaloalto.com, Bear.ride@fprespa.org, CHamilton@da.sccgov.org, JRosen@dao.sccgov.org, Erin.Goodell@cityofpaloalto.org, Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org 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 aquasi-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 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, 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@cityofpalo alto.org Joshuah Mello Chief Transportation Official Palo Alto's Transportation Division 5 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,     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]  6 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 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 1 Carnahan, David From:Ben Stolpa <jben@stolpa.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 10:35 AM To:Council, City Cc:Bob Wenzlau Subject:Request to Modify 2018 Zero Waste Plan and GreenWaste Contract Negotiations City Council, Palo Alto:    The long, detailed, and well thought out letter by Bob Wenzlau submitted for the Council’s consideration and adoption  as a point of negotiation and inclusion in any new contract with Green Waste has my strong support.      As a long time resident of Palo Alto I also feel this community must take a leadership role in ascertaining the proper end  management of trash by Green Waste and its downstream handlers of that waste.  Otherwise Palo Alto is involved in  what is an environmental sham, a feel‐good exercise, of waste management.  The reality may be, given the enormity of  the problem and the international scope of the activity, that our city may not be able to effect a solution on its own.   Nevertheless, the discussion must begin, the problem identified, ideas generated, and the first steps taken…….and  please, please, don’t just issue a “proclamation."    Ben Stolpa  jben@stolpa.com  Forest Avenue  Palo Alto      1 Carnahan, David From:LOUIS FRIED <llfried@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road If you think that we have forgotten the Ross Road fiasco, wait until the election.  1 Carnahan, David From:Judy Jennings <judyjm2@verizon.net> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 5:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:STOP JUST CAUSE EVICTION Do not pass this law.  It will undermine all rental properties in Palo Alto !!!    Judy Jennings Moritz  Keller Williams Realty  BRE# 00602617  Mobile: 650‐619‐6600  1 Carnahan, David From:Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 5:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for the Urgency Ordinance Dear Palo Alto City Council ‐ I hope that tonight you will move forward with an urgency ordinance to better support  situations such as the President Hotel.  I look forward to later and fuller discussion of options for permanent and more  complete renter protections.    Thank you, Edie Keating  1 Carnahan, David From:mwilliams <moniwilliams@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 29, 2018 8:53 AM To:ParkRec Commission; Howard, Adam Cc:Council, City Subject:Thank you for Court Policy Update Chair McDougall, Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Adam Howard, Thank you for voting in favor of recommending to the Palo Alto City Council to approve updating the Court Use Policy to include Pickleball. Thank you, Adam, for the enormous amount of time that you spent working on updating the policy. I’d like to make some important points that may not have been heard at the meeting. Pickleball is Noisy: Because of the noise factor of pickleball, we need a facility far enough away from residences so as not to disturb their peace. No Other Choice: Mitchell Park is the only park in Palo Alto that meets the above criterion. Tennis players are fortunate because they have a choice of playing on any of the other 40 tennis courts in Palo Alto, including the 4 newly resurfaced lighted courts at Mitchell. Pickleballers have no other choice. Portable Nets: Every time we play, we have to put up, and remove, as many as 11 portable nets which we have stored in a locker outside the courts. These nets weigh 25 lbs. Classes: Since April, 2017 I, personally, in a volunteer capacity, have taught 54 City Pickleball Classes on courts 5, 6 and 7 and have had to put up the portable nets for every one of them. Currently I am teaching 2 classes a week for 16 weeks and proposing to teach a Youth class next season. Please act on the following: Save Money: Courts 5, 6, and 7, are due to be resurfaced soon. It makes perfect economic sense to install 4 permanent pickleball nets on court 5 at the same time this work is done. Palo Alto Pickleball Club: Going forward, please refer to our club as the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. We have over 360 members and 40% are Palo Alto residents. Our base is at Mitchell Park so the board felt that changing our name from the Silicon Valley Pickleball Club more accurately reflect our demographics. Sincerely, Monica Monica Williams USAPA Ambassador Pal Alto Pickleball Club SVPC President (650)254-1041 1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:38 PM To:Council, City Cc:Al Mollica Subject:THANK YOU for signing with Pets in Need! Council Members:  I am so grateful to you all for voting to let Pets in Need take over the animal shelter. This is a wonderful outcome for  animals and those who love them.                  Pat Marriott  1 Carnahan, David From:Dave Warner <dwar11@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 24, 2018 3:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you! Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council members, Thank you for the huge amount of time you gave to the Bay Delta Plan last Monday night along with your groundwork, questions, and at the end of the discussion, your commentaries. In line with what Peter Drekmeier said, that was the most robust public debate for all of the Bay Delta Plan meetings I was fortunate enough to attend. It also seems to me that your voting was strongly in line with the beliefs of our community. Thank you. Two lesser comments: It seems like Greg Schmid is no longer a good representative for us at BAWSCA. While he has been a valuable contributor to Palo Alto, in this particular instance it would be good for him to move on. To the question that was asked about our advanced purified water and our IPR study (that staff did not answer well): My understanding is that Palo Alto uses roughly 10 mgd, that there's presently no consideration of DPR which staff brought up, but that advanced purified water could supply up to 4 mgd for IPR, that a key cost and time issue was pipe to get the water to the right places for putting in the ground, and that no timeline had been discussed but it is likely 10+ years given how long projects take. Of course it is terrific that Palo Alto has this study in progress. With kind regards, Dave Warner 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:30 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); gkirby@redwoodcity.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; myraw@smcba.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; apardini@cityofepa.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; ibain@redwoodcity.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Council, City; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; cromero@cityofepa.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; council@redwoodcity.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Binder, Andrew; stephanie@dslextreme.com; rabrica@cityofepa.org; drutherford@cityofepa.org; epatoday@epatoday.org; acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; lgauthier@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; sscott@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; sdremann@paweekly.com; scharpentier@cityofepa.org; mbuell@cityofepa.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; Minor, Beth; Constantino, Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Zelkha, Mila; JIM MINKLER1; Doug Fort; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; gerrygras@earthlink.net; bjohnson@paweekly.com; denkafer1@yahoo.com Subject:2 things you didn’t know about police violence in California     From: Yoel Haile, ACLU Foundations of CA <MeetYourDA@acluca.org>  Date: August 28, 2018 at 2:59:50 PM PDT  To: Aram <abjpd1@gmail.com>  Subject: 2 things you didn’t know about police violence in California  Reply‐To: Yoel Haile, ACLU Foundations of CA <MeetYourDA@acluca.org>    View this email in your browser        Hey Aram, 2   Last year, California police killed 162 people — only half of whom had a gun. Here’s what you might not know. 1. When it comes to releasing police records, California is one of the most secretive states in the country.1 2. California has the oldest untouched use-of-force law in the nation — it hasn’t been amended since 1872!2 Today, we have the opportunity to make some long overdue changes to these laws. It’s time to keep Californians safe and hold our police accountable. Here’s how.     Under California law, it is currently legal to block the public — and district attorneys — from finding out about police misconduct. Right now, a bill is up for vote in the California senate that would make police disciplinary records available to the public — including sexual assault, lying on the job, falsifying records, and planting evidence — and would increase public 3   access to records or investigations of police killings.1 Californians have a right to know about police misconduct. Call your California assemblymember and ask them to vote yes on SB-1421.   TAKE ACTION   But it’s not enough just to shine a light on police violence. We have to put an end to it. Under current law, police officers may use any kind of force they believe is “reasonable”, regardless of the crime, whether the person is armed, or whether they pose a threat to the officer or another person. These laws also make it more difficult for district attorneys to press criminal charges in fatal use-of-force episodes.3 The California State Assembly has introduced a bill to update these laws and prevent unnecessary killings. This bill would require that officers only use lethal force when necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death and when no non-lethal alternatives are available.2 Police should never kill when they have alternatives. Call on your state assemblymember to support, AB 931, the Police Accountability and Community Protection Act.   TAKE ACTION 4   Onwards! Yoel Haile Manager, Meet Your DA Project ACLU Foundations of California Sources: 1. California lawmakers to decide fate of police accountability bills, San Francisco Chronicle, August 15, 2018 2. California Cops Shot and Killed 162 People Last Year. This Bill Could Help Reduce the Bloodshed, Mother Jones, August 16, 2018 3. Prosecutors face a high bar for charges against officers in shootings, San Francisco Chronicle, May 24, 2018        Copyright © 2018 Project of ACLU Foundations of CA, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: ACLU Foundations of CA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.      1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 5:07 PM To:Council, City Cc:Michael Harbour; Lait, Jonathan; Architectural Review Board Subject:429 University and 480 Lytton Due to personal and family time constraints, I have not been able to follow thru on my concerns on several downtown developments. Here are two concerns deserving your attention: 429 University Avenue One of my neighbors Michael Harbour has a concern about city approval process. He feels that the demolition permit is premature and requires a review process set by City Council in February 2017. Most residents, including myself, are not in a position to understand this level of detail. Few of us have resources to seek independent counsel on basic staff and commission responsibilities. Michael Harbour is not only a DTN resident; he is also a property owner within the University Avenue commercial core. 480 Lytton I have formally presented my concerns to Planning Department via a code enforcement submission 5 months ago. There are at least two issues. What is the process for following up with code enforcement issues submitted via the city website. What is reasonable timeline for review and feedback to a citizen raising questions? Is it the citizen's responsibility to track down enforcement personnel for response. Primary responsibility resides in plan review by the Planning Department. Palo Alto has citizens who are reasonably competent in understanding planning details and applicable regulations. I am awaiting more specific staff response to unanswered details. Due to the upcoming holiday, some delay is acceptable but questions have been lingering from Code Enforcement and Planning Department for over 5 months. Although the number of parking spaces in question is small, the issue that parking supply and demand within the commercial core is not self-correcting and seems to place greater and pressure upon spillover into the residential neighborhoods. There are several other issues that I could mention but these two projects deserve your attention. I see too often a pattern of staff decisions and recommendations seemingly leaning toward developers' advantage contrary to balance of interest stated in the Comp Plan. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell 1 Carnahan, David From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 3:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave Dear Council Members      I just learned about the staff position to tear down 429 University Ave BEFORE a new building is even  designed and  approved.  Are we suppose to find this as an asset to our main thoroughfare in the city?   Once the building is torn down,  ‐ after a very short time, people will get disgusted with the empty space  and start hammering for a new structure.  This  makes the requirement to how a new structure will work for University Ave will be compromised.    No matter how one works this ‐ the cart has never been able to be in front and pull the horse.   We, as residents  deserved more attention to this process. I can’t imagine how  and why you would ‐ under any circumstances ‐ approve  this to happen.  Making one developer happy, at the expense of so many people who care deeply about what PA looks  like is not what the City Council should allow    Proceedure :     Design the Building ‐ Developer                            Approval ‐ Planning Commission                            Guideline to build approval ‐ Permit department                             Destruction of the old bulding                             Rebuild when approval is fully finalized    Anything else is lopsided and makes absolutely no sense.    Thank you  Lenore Cymes  Wildwood Lane  1 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 3:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Dear City council,  Demolition permits are not allowed prior to approved plans, right? So why is Planning Dept issuing one for 429  University when the ARB rejected the most recent design? We've had experience with this in the past: developers  demolish then leave eyesores until they get what they want because people are tired of piles of debris, garbage, porta  potties, and equipment piling up. Please require Ms Wong to go through the process you already outlined.  We are counting on you to enforce your own decisions.  Cheryl Lilienstein  Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:09 PM To:Eggleston, Brad Cc:Council, City; Kleinberg, Judy; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth; Brettle, Jessica; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Drekmeier, Peter; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Allison@padailypost.com; EmiBach@padailypost.com; Anne.Ream@mail.house.gov; Alex Kobayashi; Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; richard@alexanderlaw.com Subject:URGENT -- Power Wash downtown University Avenue     Mr. Brad Eggleston  Public Works Director  City of Palo Alto    Dear Mr. Egglestone:    University Avenue is long overdue to receive a Power Washing.     As a life-long resident, I have never seen the sidewalks so black and dingy with filth and grime. For some time, Palo Alto locals, shopkeepers, and visitors are complaining to me because they're totally grossed out by downtown's neglect. I speak for my community when I say, downtown Palo Alto deserves better treatment.    As the newly-promoted Public Works Director (late-July), I appeal to you to take charge and Power Wash our beautiful University Avenue.     Please respond.    Respectfully,  -Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council candidate, 2016 & 2005  1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2018 9:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Urgent: 429 University Ave Demolition Permit issued without final ARB design approval Dear Esteemed City Council Members:    I was informed by Jodie Gerhardt from the the Palo Alto Planning Department that it plans to issue a permit to Elizabeth  Wong to demolish the existing Birge Clark buildings at the 429 University Avenue site.  This decision is premature and is  contrary to your motion on February 6, 2017.   At that time, the council mandated the applicant to pursue building  Option 1 and then proceed to ARB approval of the western wall design, landscaping, and exterior building materials, colors, and  craftsmanship.   The applicant failed to submit any plans during the first year after your motion.  She applied and was granted a one year  extension by the planning department.  Finally after 18 months (and at risk of losing any opportunity to develop the site), she appeared  before the ARB on August 18, 2018 and was unprepared.  The ARB unanimously denied her design.  They said it was incomplete and not  coherent.   She has fired her architect, Joe Bellomo, who is just one in a long line of fired architects. He has publicly disavowed himself of  the building and the design.  The building may not be appropriately designed at this time, and It is unclear if the applicant can even follow  through on the original building proposal that they put forth to the city council since that architect is no longer involved.  It is too important  of a site to make such a mistake.    The applicant, Ms. Wong, has been afforded every opportunity to comply with your motion and she has failed to do so.  I believe that the  planning department is inappropriately assisting her.  They already granted her a one year extension.  They have removed all adjacent  heritage trees.  Now they are going to grant a demolition permit before the design is even approved!    This is simply wrong and ignores the  intent behind the appeal and the council's motion.      I urge all of you to contact Jonathan Lait and put a stop to this egregious failure to comply with your motion.  The applicant and planning  department must follow your instructions or risk further litigation from neighbors and residents.  I would appreciate a response as soon as  possible.      Sincerely,    Michael Harbour, MD, MPH  Lead appellant on behalf of 429 University Ave Appellants  1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Adam Petersen Subject:URGENT: 429 University Ave Relevant Motion Documents Attachments:Council Motion_2-6-17.pdf; Staff Report_2-6-17.pdf Dear City Council,    Given the lengthy duration of this issue and the numerous documents associated with this case, I'm attaching the  following relevant documents with highlighted passages for the proposed 429 University Avenue development to  simplify your review.  The city council mandated a set of rules (set as conditions) for the applicant to follow.   The  applicant has not met those obligations.  Staff was required to submit written findings to the City Council as part of the  approved Motion which it has not done.  At this time, there is no reason whatsoever that the Planning Department  should issue demolition and building permits until all obligations and findings have been met.   The historic resources  (Birge Clark buildings) should not be demolished until there is 100% certainty that all obligations have been met.   I  appreciate your attention to this matter.    Sincerely,  Michael Harbour, MD, MPH  Lead Appellant for 429 University Ave    Attachments:    1.  City Council Motion Minutes from February 6, 2017.         a.  ARB Member Alex Lew tells City Council that the ARB has not seen a complete rendering of Option #1 (thereby  indicating that it still needs ARB review).       b.  Motion for Building Option #1 is approved to be set for further development.   (complete PDF transcript  pages 1‐52; motion on PDF pages 48‐49).          c.  Approved Motion references three pages of recommendations within Staff Report that are to be incorporated into  the final Motion (pages 527‐529 in original packet or PDF pages 5‐8).         d.  Ms. Gitelman (planner) states, "We do have a condition that we're suggesting, that's been incorporated into the  Motion, that the applicant would return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendations..."  (PDF  page 45)       e.  Final passed motion (PDF pages 42, 48‐49).  Motion includes conditions and directs Staff to return with the written  findings of adoption.         2.  Staff Report from February 6, 2017.  Contains the specific items mentioned in the passed Motion. (see pages 5‐8).        1.  Applicant shall submit detailed plans for floor area and development standards        2.  4th floor guardrails and plantars to be set back        3.  Library to be removed        4.  Third floor roofline to be set back to follow third floor building footprint        5.   Decorative wall design treatment, feature or element to be applied and have ARB approval        6.   Elevator on Kipling St. no to exceed 50 feet        7.   Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendations for landscaping review         8.   Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendation to Director of Planning of building  materials, colors, and craftsmanship related detailing associated with building   2       9.   Also recommended ARB consider recessed pedestrian entries as ARB has consistently sought to  improve the pedestrian experience of this building, but there has been little refinement of the feature over  the different iterations.    3. The staff recommendations state "it should be noted that all of the options in this report will be subject to  more detailed review for code compliance at the building permit state, if/when a single design option has  been advanced."  (PDF page 8)    3.  ARB Hearing video link from August 16, 2018.  The ARB unanimously denies the submitted design.  Relevant video  starts at 1:30:35 within the clip        http://midpenmedia.org/architectural‐review‐board‐74‐2‐3‐2‐2‐2‐2‐2‐2‐2‐2‐2/       TRANSCRIPT Page 27 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 schedule a contractor to perform the abatement. If we then still have to actually perform the abatement, it's the cost of the abatement plus $434 to cover our costs because I'm here tonight as I am in several other jurisdictions. There is a lot of work involved in what we have to do to ensure that we're, one, dealing with the correct property owner, which is part of what I said we would take care of, making sure we weren't in the wrong spot, and to run through the process of being able to help people in case, like I said, there could be a misunderstanding or any of those things that we would like to address and make sure that we're accurate. Council Member Kou: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: With that, seeing no further lights, I will move the Staff recommendation which is to adopt the attached Resolution, Attachment A, ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. Council Member Holman: Second. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to adopt a Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. Mayor Scharff: Second by Council Member Holman. If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously with Vice Mayor Kniss absent. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Mayor Scharff: I forgot to mention that Vice Mayor Kniss wanted me to say that the reason she is absent is she has a family emergency that she needed to take care of. That's why she's not here tonight. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-foot, Four Story, Mixed use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-foot Site. Environmental Assessment: the Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). The Council Previously Considered This Appeal on November 30, 2015 and Remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for Redesign and Further Review Based on Council’s Direction. Mayor Scharff: Now, we're moving onto Item Number 11. We are approximately 30 minutes behind schedule already. Does Staff have—let me go through a couple of things first. I knew we had something. A couple of TRANSCRIPT Page 28 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 things. This is a public hearing on 429 University Avenue, to consider a continued appeal of the Director's Architectural Review approval of a four- story mixed-use building. The Council previously considered this appeal on November 30th, 2015, and remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for redesign and further review based on the Council's direction. I wanted to review a little bit the procedure so everyone understands what we're doing tonight and everyone has a clear concept. The first thing is we'll do Council disclosures. Then, we're going to have a Staff presentation. Then, the appellant will have 10 minutes to present, and then the applicant will have 10 minutes to present. Then, we'll take public comment. It's going to be three minutes per speaker. Don't feel you have to use all three minutes. After public comments, the appellant and the applicant will each have three minutes for rebuttal. After we close the public comments, we'll do a round of Council questions and comments before we move onto general Council motions. First, we'll start with the Council disclosures of any ex parte communications. I, first of all, see Council Member Tanaka's light on. Council Member Tanaka: The first question is actually for the City Attorney. As the City Attorney knows, I have received a donation from the applicant. Is there any legal reason that I need to recuse myself from this meeting? Molly Stump, City Attorney: Based on that fact, there's not a legal requirement for recusal in this matter. Council Member Tanaka: I do have some disclosures. Even though I'm not legally required to recuse myself, I decided because of the proximity of time of when I received the donation that I would return it. I did contact the applicant to return the donation. I talked to also the appellant, Michael Harbour. I spoke to him for about maybe 40 minutes, maybe almost an hour. What I learned in the meeting was that he opposed the project because he said it has too much square footage. The project was too large. That was his primary reason for opposing this project. I subsequently had an email exchange with Molly Stump copied on it where he was asking to meet with me in person. I told him that I would follow the policy I did on the PTC, which was that I would only meet with him if he would also meet with the applicant at the same time. He basically declined to do that and basically said that—he basically compared it to having a rape victim meet their rapist, which I didn't quite understand, but that was his comment. Those are the only disclosures I have. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I had a short, probably about 10-minute, phone call with the appellant over a week ago. He notified me that Option 3 in the TRANSCRIPT Page 29 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Packet was submitted after the last ARB meeting. He asked about recusals, and I pointed him to the public internet where there are descriptions of conflict of interest. Other than that, I did not learn anything that's not in the public record. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Thank you. I have met the applicant at social gatherings, I believe, at the Rotary Club, where she indicated she wanted a fair hearing. I responded to the appellant, and we did set up a meeting. After seeing where this was going, I canceled that meeting. I didn't learn anything from either of them outside of the record, just that both of them want a fair hearing. I appreciate them reaching out. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I had a couple of brief exchanges with the appellant. There was a message left for me, looking for contact information for, as I recall it, a couple of Council Members for whom contact information he was not able to find. By the time I could get back to him, he found them in other ways. The other communication I had from him, when I did speak with him, was that he contacted me regarding meeting procedures for appellants, was it required that the appellant, the applicant and the City Attorney all be present for a meeting with a Council Member regarding a project as had been requested of him. I indicated I was not aware of any such requirements. That would be something new to me. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I'm not sure if it's required at this point, but I may as well just mention that prior to, I think, our last discussion about this project back in 2015, I spoke with the applicant and also met with the appellant and did a site tour with the appellant. Nothing new since that time. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: I had a phone call with the appellant. He just wanted to catch me up and find out if I was up-to-date on this project. I told him I was. Mayor Scharff: Seeing no other lights except my own, I also had a short phone call with the appellant, Michael Harbour. Mr. Harbour informed me— we spoke about 10 minutes—about his opposition to the project. He thought it was incompatible with the Victorians on Kipling Street. That was basically TRANSCRIPT Page 30 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 the substance of the call. I did receive a voice mail from the applicant, talking about procedural issues regarding whether or not—why she did not want to put this matter off to a later date. With that, I think I'll now open the public hearing and first invite the Staff presentation. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director: Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, City Council. My name is Jonathan Lait. I'm the Assistant Director to the Planning and Community Environment Department. I'm joined by Director Hillary Gitelman and Mr. Petersen from M Group. He's our consulting planner, who has assisted us with this project. The Item that is before you this evening is an appeal of an Architectural Review Board approval for a proposed four-story, mixed-use project located at 429 University. The project includes two levels of subterranean parking, ground-floor retail and office and residential above that. The project was filed about—it was filed in June 2014 formally. The project received three formal hearings before the Architectural Review Board before the Director's decision was rendered in February 2015. An appeal was filed. City Council had pulled the Item off of Consent and scheduled it for a hearing. It had a hearing in May. At the hearing in May, the City Council had a number of questions that were asked, and the Council had remanded the matter to the Historic Resources Board and to the Architectural Review Board. At that meeting, the Council had discussed a number of issues related to the project, project findings, parking, loading zone requirements, the transfer of development rights, historic resources, and some other issues. The next couple of meetings before the HRB and the Architectural Review Board vetted out some of those issues. It returned to the City Council on November 30, 2015. Eleven months since that time, the applicant proceeded with modifying the project in an effort to respond to those comments and direction. In September last year, the applicant submitted a schematic drawing of a design scheme that Staff believed was heading in the right direction in terms of being responsive to the Council Members' comments. The Architectural Review Board also was supportive of the project; although, they did have some critical comments that they had asked the applicant to follow up on. At the subsequent meeting in October, the applicant had chosen to go a different path according to comments from individual Board Members, who felt that the project was actually now taking a step backwards. It was on this October 20th meeting that the Architectural Review Board recommended that the City Council uphold the appeal and deny the project. Following that action, the applicant submitted a refined version of that September 1 plan, which Staff is calling Option 1. Staff believes that that is the option that is most responsive to Council Member comments. In December, two months later, the applicant had TRANSCRIPT Page 31 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 submitted a third version, the third being an iteration of Option 1 that added another approximately 2,600 square feet of additional floor area at the fourth floor. Option 2 in our discussion is going to be the plan that the Architectural Review Board recommended denial on. That takes us to the meeting that we're having here this evening. Just to reorient or familiarize those unfamiliar with the project site, it is located at the corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue at 429 University. This is a photograph, the first one, looking southwest down University. The project site is toward the right, in the center-right of that photograph. The bottom photograph is taken from Kipling Street and down Lane 30. This is the area behind the subject project site. It's looking at the subject property; it's the rear property line. On November 30th, the City Council gave Staff clear direction—we should say that the comments that the City Council had offered at that point were focused on the context and design compatibility. The City Council gave specific comments with respect to four Context Based Design Criteria, which are set forth in the Municipal Code that the Council felt the project needed to respond to and additional Architectural Review Board findings. With respect to the Context Based Design Criteria, the Council was concerned that the proposed project—the contextual and compatible criteria set forth in the Code regarding the siting, scale, and mass of the project still needed some work; that the compatibility goal in relation to the pattern of rooflines and projections still needed to be evaluated; and that the proposed design, the street building facades needed some additional work to address the human scale and help break up the building mass. With respect to direction from the Council regarding Architectural Review Board findings, the Council expressed concern about the compatibility and appropriateness of the materials and textures; felt that the design's compatibility with the area as having a unified design character had not been achieved; that the design's compatibility with the immediate environment still needed to be addressed. With respect to that last point, this is a line diagram. The top part of the slide is showing the proposed project in relationship to the adjacent one and two-story buildings along University Avenue. The below photograph is a street view of those properties to the southwest or left of that project site. As viewed from Kipling, the proposed project separated by an alley from the one-story building on Kipling. As you continue down Kipling, there is the Victorian architecture that exists on both sides of the street. The photograph below is the street view of that one-story building looking toward the subject project site. Here's a summary of the three options that are presented to the City Council. Again, Option 1 is the one that Staff believes is most responsive to prior comments and direction. It has three residential dwelling units. Option 2 is the one that was rejected by the Architectural Review Board. That had five residential units. Option 3 is the plan that was submitted in December by the applicant. This is their plan that they are putting forth as TRANSCRIPT Page 32 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 their project. That's the one that they would like to have an action on. Some renderings of the different options. This is Option 1 as viewed from University Avenue. We don't have a rendering from Kipling Street as the applicant chose not to further develop that rendering for Kipling on this design. However, there is—the rendering for Option 3 is very similar to Option 1. You'll see that in just a moment. This is the Option 2 plan that was reviewed by the Board on October 20th and recommended for denial. Again, just to go back on Option 1 for a moment. The Architectural Review Board did review a schematic drawing of Option 1 on September 1. That plan was refined a little bit after the Architectural Review Board made its decision on this project. This is Option 2 from Kipling. Option 3, the design that was submitted in December, from University Avenue you can see there's additional building mass on the roof toward the left of the project. It also extends further toward the rear property line toward the alley. This is the view of Option 3 from Kipling Street. This same perspective is very similar to what we believe to be the Option 1 rendering as viewed from this perspective. As you shift further down Kipling, you would get a different perspective of the proposed Option 3 versus Option 1, but that's revealed in the line drawings. We can walk the Council through that if you're interested. Here's a collection of the three different options as viewed from University and viewed from Kipling. Again, we're suggesting that Option 1 and 3 from this perspective look similar. As I stated previously, Staff believes that Option 1 is the one that is most responsive to comments from the Council regarding building mass and transitions. If the Council is interested in pursuing this option or, frankly, any of the options—actually I would say Option 1 or Option 3—there are some conditions that Staff has considered. We've included those in the Staff Report; we can address these specifically if there's any interest in that. Again, the Architectural Review Board's recommending rejection of Option 2. The applicant's proposed alternative, Option 3, is included with this Packet for the Council's consideration. With that, Staff recommends that the Council direct the Staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action to deny the appeal, approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program, and approve either Options 1, 2 or 3 with or without conditions. Alternatively, the Council could choose to uphold the appeal and deny a modified project, Options 1, 2 and 3, based on the ARB's October 20th recommendation and a finding that the design modifications have not addressed the Council's previous concerns. Staff would return at a future date with that Record of Land Use Action to memorialize the Council's action. With that, I will turn it back to the Mayor. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. With that, we now go to the appellant. Dr. Harbour, are you here? You'll have 10 minutes. TRANSCRIPT Page 33 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Michael Harbour, Appellant: Thank you, City Council Members and Mr. Mayor. Congratulations on your new appointments here, to be sure. These five buildings are the buildings that are slated to be torn down and the new development put there. Listed here are all the appellants; I'm representing the appellants here this evening. I want to remind people why we are here. On May 4, 2015, the Council spent a great deal of time making a Motion to the applicant about what the new plans should entail going forward. I've summarized these five points. Specifically, the project, number one, should have design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of both University and—this is important— Kipling Street are maintained. The plans were to be resubmitted to the ARB, and the ARB was specifically to look at the compatibility of the immediate environment; ensure design articulation and setbacks that minimize massing; to look at the roof, entries, setbacks, mass, and scale; and that they must conform to the Context Based Design Criteria. The building's façade shall have greater reinforcement of the relationship of the street. The upper floors shall have setbacks. Specifically I've highlighted there was an option of either third or fourth floors approved if they are visually compatible from the streets and had articulation and setback both from University and Kipling. The HRB had weighed in on this previously and unanimously, 5-0, rejected this plan. Most recently, the ARB 3-0 unanimously rejected the plans as well. Shadow studies and traffic studies were also indicated. What I want to let you know is that this appeal is rooted in violation of the Municipal Palo Alto Codes. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires harmonious transition in scale and character and that are considerate of each other, in the Codes listed there. The design should follow the Context Based Design Criteria. In addition, the building should be responsive to the context and compatible with adjacent buildings, should have appropriate transitions, and have visible unity on the street. My argument has never been on size or square footage alone, as Council Member Tanaka incorrectly said. The appeal is also rooted in violation of the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Development Guidelines. This massive building discourages the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian and bicycle only use and prevents shops from opening onto the alleyway. That's listed in the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Development Guidelines very specifically. Just as Centennial Alleyway has been developed to open up businesses there, this alleyway has been requested to do the same thing. Finally, Kipling Street is designated a secondary business district. There should be recognition and consideration for this as well, which has been ignored. Again, that's part of the Downtown Design Guidelines. We've seen many, many renditions. The applicant is on the fourth or fifth architect. The first design was deemed not compatible. It showed no shared characteristics or design linkages with the neighboring buildings. You can see the big white structure there. It was large and massive and detracted City of Palo Alto (ID # 7376) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 429 University Avenue: Appeal of Mixed Use Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-foot, Four Story, Mixed use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-foot Site. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated on November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). The Council Previously Considered this Appeal on November 30, 2015 and Remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for Redesign and Further Review Based on Council’s Direction From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action to either: 1) deny the appeal, approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachments F-H) and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Attachment I) and approve a modified project (Option 1, 2, or 3) with or without conditions, directing staff to return with written findings for adoption; Or 2) uphold the appeal and deny a modified project (Option 1, 2, and 3) based on the Architectural Review Board’s recommendation of October 20, 2016 and a finding that proposed project modifications have not addressed the Council’s previous concerns, directing staff to return with written findings for adoption. [Note: Option 1 is similar to that reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on September 1, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2018 5:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Thursday, August 23, 2018 4:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Why Privatize the 'Commons', the Public Sphere? Ths is a letter re the privatization of the public good. The Palo Alto City Council/staff have PRIVATIZED the Rinconada City PUBLIC Pool! Why? It used to be a wonderful place, with diverse kids from all over, parents, and friends, in both pools on Sundays. It was a festive, happy, active place, full of children learning to swim. Last Sunday the kids round, wading pool w/ fountains was closed, (Yet I think this is their regular schedule) and only a few swimmers were there at first (1pm), in lap lanes only. When I left at 2:30 there were no more than 30 folks there, mostly adult lap swimmers, and only 1 life guard on at 1pm, 2 later. Prices are nearly double what they were a couple of years ago. And prices for swimming lessons are higher! What happened to our public, community pool?? Take it back. High school life-guards cost less, and they were very helpful, and the prices were reasonable, even for non-residents!. Do a survey! Take the pool back so that it will be fully utilized, and kids can enjoy the local, public swimming pool. Roberta Ahlquist Palo Alto resident • AGENDA ITEM NO . CITY OF CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM I COUNCIL MEETING~ 8-27-2018 6 IZ]Received Before Meeting PALO ALTO TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Public Works AGENDA DATE: August 27, 2018 ID#: 9~237 SUBJECT: Agenda item 6: Acceptance of the 2018 Zero Waste Plan; Direction to Staff to Develop a Proposed Contract Extension to the Current Refuse Hauling and Processing Contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto to Implement the New Zero Waste Plan; and Direction to Staff to Prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP} for Related Refuse Services. In light of two additional recommendations suggested by Bob Wenzlau and other community members, staff recommends adding two more "Recommendations" (Nos. 4 & 5) to CMR 9237 (Item #6) as shown below. Recommendations Staff recommends that Council: 1) Accept the 2018 Zero Waste Plan (Attachment A); 2) Direct staff to develop a contract amendment to add scope and extend the term of the current contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. (GreenWaste) for collection of all refuse containers, processing recyclable and compostable materials (contents of blue and green containers), and implementation of key Zero Waste Plan initiatives; and 3) Direct staff to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for garbage (contents of black containers) processing and disposal services that would begin in 2021. 4} Direct staff to include a contract amendment with GreenWaste (as part of No. 2 above) which requires GreenWaste to determine and report on the intermediate and final disposition of Palo Alto's paper and plastic recovered materials within six months of the Contract date in order to allow Palo Alto to determine whether the disposition of these materials meets Palo Alto's environmental and social goals. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5) Direct staff to prepare an update to the Zero Waste Plan (Attachment A) within 9 months of the GreenWaste Contract Amendment date (referenced in No. 2 above) that contains alternative diversion rates which do not include as "diverted" any materials where the management or disposition falls short of Palo Alto's environmental or social goals. Brad Eggleston Interim Public Works Director James Keene City Manager Citll of Palo Alto ICOUNCI~ Ml?G Budget Com~arison <j'J ., I . Aug-18 [%d Before M~etmg t Received at Meeung Budget Budget Percentage Ex~enses bll Office 2005-2006 2018-2019 Variance Increase City Attorney $ 2,743 $ 3,263 $ 520 119% City Auditor $ 839 $ 1,258 $ 419 150% City Clerk $ 923 $ 1,282 $ 359 139% City Council $ 164 $ 488 $ 324 298% City Manager $ 1,751 $ 3,259 $ 1,508 186% Administrative Services $ 6,344 $ 7,963 $ 1,619 126% Office of Sustainability $ $ 417 $ 417 0% Community Services $ 19,635 $ 28,915 $ 9,280 147% Development Services $ $ 12,561 $ 12,561 0% Fire $ 20,160 $ 31,826 $ 11,666 158% Human Services $ 2,355 $ 3,634 $ 1,279 154% Library $ 5,633 $ 9,664 $ 4,031 172% Office of Emergency Services $ $ 1,509 $ 1,509 0% Planning and Community $ 8,766 $ 8,791 $ (941) 89% Police $ 23,314 $ 41,951 $ 18,637 180% Public Works $ 11,451 $ 18,492 $ 7,041 161% Non-Departmental $ 9,043 $ 7,825 $ (1,218) 87% subtotal $ 113,121 $ 183,098 $ 69,011 162% Transfer to Infrastructure $ $ 25,173 $ 25,173 0% Operating Transfer Out $ 6,572 $ 5,725.00 $ (847) 87% $ 119,693 $ 213,996 $ 93,337 179% Citv of Palo Alto Budget ComRarison Aug-18 Budget Budget Percentage 2005-2006 2018-2019 Variance Increase ExRenditures b)l Categories Salaries and Benefits $ 81,572,572 $ 125,452,000 $ 43,879,428 154% Contract Services $ 9,340,938 $ 21,334,000 $ 11,993,062 228% Supplies and materials $ 3,130,478 $ 3,563,000 $ 432,522 114% General expenses $ 8,971,745 $ 10,074,000 $ 1,102,255 112% Rents and Leases $ 597,189 $ 1,690,000 $ 1,092,811 283% Debt Services $ $ 613,000 $ 613,000 0% Facilities and Equipment Purchases $ 500,304 $ 522,000 $ 21,696 104% Allocated Charges $ 10,006,793 $ 19,850,000 $ 9,843,207 198% subtotal $ 114,120,019 $ 183,098,000 $ 68,977,981 160% Operating Transfers Out $ 6,572,356 $ 5,725,000 $ (847,356) 87% $ 120,692,375 $ 188,823,000 $ 68,130,625 156% Cit)£ of Palo Alto Budget Com~arison Aug-18 Budget Budget Percentage Revenues 2005-2006 2018-2019 Variance Increase Sales Tax $ 19,036 $ 31,246 $ 12,210 164% Property tax $ 16,986 $ 45,332 $ 28,346 267% Transient Occupancy Tax $ 6,173 $ 25,049 $ 18,876 406% Utility Users Tax $ 8,341 $ 16,092 $ 7,751 193% Document transfer fee $ $ 7,434 $ 7,434 0% Other Taxes and Fines $ 6,845 $ 2,032 $ (4,813) 30% Charges for Services $ 18,760 $ 28,015 $ 9,255 149% Permits and Licenses $ 4,084 $ 8,949 $ 4,865 219% Return on Investment $ 2,215 $ 1,166 $ (1,049) 53% Rental Income $ 12,332 $ 15,806 $ 3,474 128% From other agencies $ 204 $ 370 $ 166 181% Charges to Other Funds $ 8,924 $ 10,093 $ 1,169 113% Other Revenue $ 1,721 $ 2,361 $ 640 137% subtotal $ 105,621 $ 193,945 $ 88,324 184% Operating Transfer In $ 15,108 $ 19,772 $ 4,664 131% subtotal $ 120,729 $ 213,717 $ 92,988 177% ----------- ----coutq~~ftr-ING ---Cl Placeel Before M~etinr:r---­ [ ] Received at Meeung ---- Wage Gap: County Figures and Rankings Ratio of Women's to Men's Median Earnings for Individuals Employed Full-Time, Year-Round in Past 12 Months, 2010-2014 (2014 dollars) RANK RANK VALUE 1=BESf VALUE (1=BESf) California .854 Orange .825 29 Alameda .844 26 Placer .778 44 Alpine .845 25 Plumas .697 55 Amador .741 51 Riverside .805 36 Butte .765 45 Sacramento .866 15 Calaveras .801 37 San Benito .846 22 Colusa .818 35 San Bernardino .856 18 Contra Costa .782 41 San Diego .847 21 Del Norte .709 52 San Francisco .842 27 El Dorado .668 57 San Joaquin .821 33 Fresno 881 11 San Luis Obispo 750 48 Glenn .885 7 San Mateo .867 14 Humboldt .825 30 Santa Barbara .850 19 $7~~~ Imperial .779 43 Santa Clara .741 50 ~ Inyo .691 56 Santa Cruz .859 17 Kern .754 47 Shasta .756 46 Kings .824 31 Sierra .697 55 Lake .622 58 Siskiyou 873 13 Lassen .697 55 Solano .886 6 Los Angeles .935 3 Sonoma .884 10 Madera .947 2 Stanislaus .793 39 Marin .790 40 SUtter 826 28 Mariposa .880 12 Tehama .780 42 Mendocino .885 9 Trinity .885 9 Merced .823 32 Tulare .862 16 Modoc 1.030 Tuolumne .845 25 Mono .845 25 Ventura .819 34 Monterey .903 5 Yolo .848 20 Napa 924 4 Yuba .797 38 Nevada .750 49 Note: Data compare the median earnings for all women to the median earnings for all men, across all races and ethnicities. Data include individuals age 16 and over. Estimates for certain counties were deemed unreliable due to data limitations. The following counties have been grouped to improve the reliability of the data for this indicator: 1) Alpine, Mono, and Tuolumne; 2) Lassen, Plumas, and Serra; and 3) Mendocino and Trinity. cal budget cent er.org 2 I California Budget & Pohcy Center BY KRISTIN SCHUMACHER California Women's Well-Being Index Wage Gap Fact Sheet the WOMEN'S FOUNDATION of CAI lfORNIA MARCH 2018 The California Women's Well-Being Index provides a comprehensive, composite measure of how women are faring in each of the state's 58 counties. The Index encompasses five • dimensions" -Health, Personal Safety, Employment & Earnings, Economic Security, and Political Empowerment -each of which is made up of six indicators. This fact sheet shows statewide data by race and ethnicity for the Wage Gap Indicator, as well as the value and rank for all 58 counties. Ratio of Women's to Men's Median Earnings for Individuals Employed Full-Time, Year-Round in Past 12 Months, 2010-2014 (2014 dollars) I Wi~ .......................... ... ~m .......................... 1111 Ba:k Q63 Rr:ificl~am ,__ _____________ _.. .......... 051 Laira 1-----------.><=n.c.11 Note Data compare the median earnings for women for each raoel and ethnic group to the med111n eamingsforWlite men. Data indude indi'lidualsage 16 and over "\/Ihle exdudesindividualswho al90 identify as Latina; whch means that the Wlite and Latina categories are mutually exdusve For race categones other than Wile ind1V1dualswho Identify as Latina may be counted in both a racial category (e g • ·Bloc!<"! and in the Latina category. As9Jch Lalina and the non-Wlite racial categories are not mutually exdusive Source Budget Center analygs of US Cell9Js8ureau American Community SJrvey data This publlcation is made possible in part by support from JPMorgan Chase & Co. calbudgetcenter org lhe Women's Foundation of California I Well-Being Index -The Wome ... http://womensfoundca.org/well-being/ l of3 California Women's Well-Being Index In Partnership With the Women's Foundation of California Kristin Schumacher of the California Budget & Policy Center prepared this analysis. California, 43.1 % Get Data </> Policy (http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/WWBl_Data.xlsx) Embed Recommendations Marin, 28.3% Economic Security > Food Insecurity Nevada, 29.S% Mendocino, 31.5% San Mateo, 31.7% San Luis Obispo, 31.8% Yolo, 3S.8% Orange, 36.1% Placer, 36.9% San Francisco, 37.2% Sonoma, 37.3% Santa Clara, 39.7% Stanislaus, 39.8% Imperial, 40.8% Santa Cruz, 41.1 % Tulare, 41.2% Merced, 41.4% Sutter, 41.4% Napa, 41.7% Ventura, 41.8% Contra Costa, 41.9% Sacramento, 42.1 % Monterey, 42.4% San Diego, 42.6% San Bernardino, 42.7% Humboldt, 42.9% Los Angeles, 43.3% Shasta, 43.3% Kings, 43. 9% Butte, 44.8% Del Norte, 4S.3% Lassen, 45.3% Modoc, 4S.3% Plumas, 45.3% Sierra, 4S.3% Siskiyou, 45.3% Trinity, 4S.3% Alpine, 45.8% Amador, 4S.8% Calaveras, 45.8% Inyo, 45.8% Mariposa, 45.8% Mono,45.8% Tuolumne, 45.8% Lake, 46.1% Riverside, 46.2% Madera, 46.3% San Benito, 46.5% Santa Barbara, 46.8% Colusa, 47.7% Glenn, 47.7% Tehama, 47.7% Solano, 49.0% San Joaquin, 50.0% Fresno, S0.2% Alameda. 50.5% Yuba, 50.9% Kern, 53.0% El Dorado, 58.3% 28% Notes v Sources v 58% \. Percentage of low-and moderate-income women age 18 and over who are food insecure, 2011-2014 Download Indicator Fact Sheet (http://calbudgetcenter.org /wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet_Food-lnsecurity_March2018.pclf) Statewide by Race and Ethnicity California, 43.1% Pacific Islander, 25.1 %* Asian, 27.8% White, 37.5% Black, 48.2% Latina, 48.4% Native American, 48.8% Acknowledgments 1L.&.1.-.11--1L •• -.I--.&.---.&.----- 8/27/2018. 7:45 PM The Women's Foundation of California I Well-Being index -The Wome ... http://womensfoundca.org/well-being. l of3 the WOMEN'S l·OU,DATION c.fCi\Lll:-ORNIA Well-Being Index The Women's Well-Being Index, created in partnership with the California Budget & Policy Center {hrrp:/lcalbudgctcenterorgl), 1s a first of-its-kind onl1ne resource provides data on women's health, safety, economic security, employment and earnings, and political empowerment for all of California's 58 counties. 8/27/2018. 7:45 PN Good Evening I COUNCILif-1Et:tlNG 'iJ /7' I If'< [ ] Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting City Council members, As a member of the Palo Alto Cities for CEDAW Coalition, I strongly urge you to follow the suggestions made by Human Relations Commissioner Steven Lee. Our Coalition is comprised of many groups and individuals from our community who all agree in the importance of incorporating the essential principles of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, into our local government. This city has indeed already passed a strong resolution in support of CEDA W, Resolution no. 8217, back in October 2002. And on the first page it reads: //WHEREAS: municipal governments have an appropriate and legitimate role in affirming the importance of international law in our communities as universal norms and to serve as guides for public policy/ ,,,, Council members, please move this forward by: (1) Authorizing a task force (2) Giving that task force a year to do its work (3) Provide that task force with access to data and information, and (4) Allow us 10 hours of staff time per month. We've spent more than enough time as a community talking about how vve support gender equality. We need to begin right away, let us get the gender analysis underway by Jan 'i, 2019. We are now at a moment in which nationally and locally, the public con.sCJe r ce is again focused on all too common instances of gender discrimination and gender inequality. Palo Alto has a chance to make things right, and this CITY COUNCIL has the capacity to leave a lasting legacy. Thank you. I Sri~LL.y KD ~AK c \ t-t e.s for-CE.DAW Co o._ l\: h"o "'- LA.. N A-tv\A cl peYv \ V\ s v l q_ Ch a...p i;ru-- Herb Borock P. 0. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94301 '~~~:!~1~!: . [ ] Received at Meeting August 27, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 AUGUST 27, 2018, CITY COUNCIL :MEETING, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROHIBIT NEW APPLICATIONS FOR PC ZONE DISTRICTS RETAIN EXISTING PC ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR: INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCE:MENT MINOR CHANGES TO DEVELOP:MENT PLAN AND SCHEDULE FAILURE TO :MEET A DEVELOP:MENT SCHEDULE ADD LANGUAGE TO PC ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR TERMINATION ADD LANGUAGE TO CHAPTER 18.77 FOR ADEQUATE NOTICE OF PROPOSED MINOR CHANGES Dear City Council: I urge you to direct staff to place on your next agenda an ordinance that would prohibit new applications for PC zone districts, while retaining appropriate regulations for existing PC zones and enacting new regulations for termination of PC zone districts and adequate notice for allowed changes to existing development plans and development schedule. The adoption of Ordinance No. 5438 to add Palo Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.30(J) for an Affordable District means that the PC zone district is no to provide affordable housing. Alto Municipal Housing Combining I longer necessary The adoption of Ordinance No. 5443 to add a new Combining District, PAMC Chapter 18.30(K), for Workforce Housing in the Public Facility (PF) zone district is just the latest example of amending the PF zone district to allow a worthwhile use. For example, in 1996 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 4330 to add "Outpatient medical facilities with associated medical use" as a Conditional Use in the PF zone district to enable the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to develop and move to its current site on El Camino Real. If necessary, the uses or conditional uses in the PF zone district can be amended to facilitate development and use of another worthwhile use such as a history museum. The Council has a history of adding regulations to the Zoning Ordinance (PAMC Title 18) to benefit uses the Council believes are worthwhile. The PC zone district is not needed to achieve the same objective. For example, PAMC Chapter 18.60, Alternative Development Standards for Stanford Lands created three new overlay districts ASl, AS2, and AS3 that were needed to implement the Mayfield agreement. Also, the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1 and Phase 2 created an alternative multifamily zone district (AMF), a zone district for detached houses on small lots (DHS), two residential transition zone districts (RT35 and RT50), and moderate density and high density mixed use designations (MU-1 and MU-2). PAMC Chapter 18.36, the HD Hospital District was enacted to accommodate medical and educational uses including the Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Lucille Packard Children's Hospital, the uses at the Stanford Hoover Pavilion Site, and School of Medicine buildings. Specifically, I urge you to take the following action: Direct staff to place a draft ordinance on your next agenda to: (a) Prohibit new PC zone district approvals for all applications that have not received final Council approval as of the date the draft ordinance first appears on the Council agenda. (b) Retain the regulations for existing PC zone districts for: (i) minor changes to a development plan (portion of PAMC Section 18.38.070); (ii) changes in the development schedule (PAMC Section 18.38.130); (iii) failure to meet the development schedule (PAMC Section 18.38.140(b), but not including the last subsection of 18.38.140(b) that shall be eliminated; and (iv) inspections (PAMC Section 18.38.160). (c) Add a new section to the PC zone district regulations that provides for termination of the PC zone district if the use authorized by that PC zone district is discontinued for a period of twelve months. (d) Add a new section to the PC zone district regulations (or elsewhere in PAMC Title 18) providing adequate notice of applications for, and decisions on minor changes; the right of any aggrieved party to appeal the Director of Planning and Community Environment's decision on a minor application; the prohibition of ministerial approvals, staff level approvals, and major approvals that must instead apply for a zone change to a zone district that is not a PC zone district. Thank you for your consideration of these comments Sincerely, ~ Herb Bo r ock City Council Meeting August 27, 2018 RE: 429 University Avenue Proposed Development Update BY: Michael Harbour, MD, MPH Lead Appellant for 429 University Ave .t COUN.71:.L 1P.>.1~1NG ~4: </~-? I :~ [ ] ~d Before Meeting \ f ...yl~ecci\'ed ;1l Meeting REQUEST: Request that City Council schedule a formal agenda item to discuss at a future City Council Meeting that failure of the Applicant to adhere to the Council Motion 1. This council approved a Motion on February 6, 2017 that set into motion the future development of a parcel of land at the intersection of University Ave and Kipling Street in the downtown district. 2. The Council chose Building Option #1 at the template design with numerous conditions that were passed as part of that Motion. 3. The project was set to be designed and reviewed by the ARB and Planning Department. 4. The most important conditions of the Motion were as follows: a. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendations for landscaping review b. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendation to Director of Planning of building materials, colors, and craftsmanship related detailing associated with building c. Also recommended ARB consider recessed pedestrian entries as ARB has consistently sought to improve the pedestrian experience of this building, but there has been little refinement of the feature over the different iterations. 5. The Motion also stated that "it should be noted that all of the options in this report will be subject to more detailed review for code compliance at the building permit state, if/when a single design option has been advanced." 6. The Motion directs Staff to return with the written findings of adoption. This has not occurred. 7. The applicant's building permit expired after one year in February 2018. The applicant never returned to the ARB as directed. The staff renewed the permit without any notice to council or appellants. 8. Applicant finally returned to ARB on August 16, 2018 where the submitted design was unanimously rejected as incomplete and not cohesive. TIMELINE: 1693 Mariposa 2006: Permit pulled in October. 2007: Old house demolished in January; excavation for habitable basement and the pouring of concrete for the floor, walls and cap occurred during the spring and summer. 2008: Work on the house stopped and construction of the garage began. Just enough progress was made to keep the permit from expiring through June 2009. Owner claimed he was working on the Maybell house and work on Mariposa would go quickly as soon as Maybell was finished. 2009: Permit expired in December and not renewed. No activity during 2010, 2011 or 2012. 2013: Neighbors organized and appeared before the Council which resulted in Ordinance 5227 (passed 0111312014) requiring that a renewal application be made within 30 days of expiration and providing penalties for non-compliance. 2014: New permit issued in September. Again just enough work was done to have an inspection every 6 months and keep the permit alive. 2016: Ordinance 5389 passed setting a 48-month time limit for issuance of final inspection. 201 7: In the spring the walls went up and an inspection passed in June . Little was done thereafter. The November inspection was failed, permit expired, and confirmation letter sent from the City to the owner Nov. 27. 2018: On May 1 the next door neighbor contacted the Chief Building Inspector about enforcement of the stalled construction ordinance. He responded immediately and posted a Stop Work order. Council member Holman was contacted and has spoken with City staff. As of tonight, 8 months after the ordinance could have been implemented, no activity has occurred on the site and no contact has been made with the neighbors as to any action taken by the City. UNDERLYING CONCERN: 628 Maybell. Construction of house begun PRIOR to demolition of 1693 Mariposa ( 2007) and still not completed. The rumor is that the dome leaks and the owner does not know how to remedy the construction fault. Mariposa has the same dome roof construction. Our concern is that the fault will be repeated and Mariposa will never be signed off either.